PRIVY COUNCIL

Parliamentary Scrutiny

Greg Knight: To ask the President of the Council what proposals he has to improve parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial decisions which are made using the Royal Prerogative.

Robin Cook: As the Ministerial Code makes clear, Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their decisions and actions, including decisions which are made using the Royal Prerogative. If the hon. Member has any proposals to improve parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial decisions, which are made under the Royal Prerogative, I would be willing to consider them.
	The introduction of Westminster Hall and the greater flexibility available to select committees should already have increased the House's ability to scrutinise all aspects of Ministers' work, and will continue to do so in the future.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Departmental Report

Alan Beith: To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost was of publishing her Department's annual report for each of the past five years.

Harriet Harman: holding answer 18 July 2002
	The cost of publishing the Law Officers' Departments' annual report in each of the last four years was as follows:
	
		
			  # 
		
		
			 1999 4,327 
			 2000 4,485 
			 2001 6,849 
			 2002 7,618 
		
	
	In 1998 the Law Officers' Departments' annual report was published as part of the Lord Chancellor's Annual Report and the cost is not separately available for that year.
	In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office publish Departmental Annual Reports. The costs are as follows:
	
		Crown Prosecution Service
		
			  # 
		
		
			 1998 22,695 
			 1999 22,387 
			 2000 18,600 
			 2001 24,340 
			 2002 34,000 
		
	
	
		Treasury Solicitor's Department
		
			  # 
		
		
			 1997–98 11,647 
			 1998–99 11,746 
			 1999–2000 9,505 
			 2000–01 9,910 
		
	
	
		Serious Fraud Office
		
			  # 
		
		
			 1997–98 44,902 
			 1998–99 22,235 
			 1999–2000 21,140 
			 2000–01 20,833 
			 2001–02 25,093 
		
	
	In addition, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers published a document entitled XThe Attorney General's Review of the Year 2001–02". Although not formally an Annual Report, it explained the work of the Law Officers over the last year. Its cost was #9,234.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Immigration and Nationality Directorate

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports sent to the IND in 2001 went missing; and of these, how many have subsequently been found.

Beverley Hughes: holding answer 25 June 2002
	The information requested is not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost. However, a measure of the number of passports which could not be returned to their owners is the lost passport letter. Since September last year, strict controls have been in place on the way such letters are used; as a consequence more effective searches have been carried out and the number of letters issued has fallen by around 50 per cent. per month (from an average of 45 per month to about 20). Of those searches completed, less than 1 per cent. of passports cannot be found. Even so further initiatives are in place to improve the handling of passports.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the efficiency of the IND.

Beverley Hughes: holding answer 25 June 2002
	We aim to consider 70 per cent. of all new general and settlement cases on initial consideration within three weeks. Due to an exceptionally large increase in the number of immigration cases in the latter part of 2001 the turnaround time increased but has now been reduced to four weeks. We are working to return performance to three weeks very shortly. However, cases which cannot be dealt with at the initial consideration stage are taking up to nine months to consider. We are looking to reduce this timescale as a priority case over the next six months. We have also reviewed our processes to speed up the consideration of cases and are looking at options for utilising additional resources within The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND).
	Since the beginning of June, queue management changes in the Public Enquiry Office (PEO) in Croydon have resulted in bringing the public faster into the building when it opens. Plans are underway to open a second entrance into the building and to relocate other callers to another Croydon office in a further effort to improve access.

Immigrant Dispersal

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the policy of dispersing immigrants to Wales from the South-East of England.

Beverley Hughes: holding answer 20 June 2002
	As at the end of March 2002, 1,020* asylum seekers including dependants were being supported in National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation in Wales. In addition 160* asylum seekers including dependants in receipt of subsistence only support are resident in Wales. NASS has appointed a Regional Manager in each of its regions. Regional Managers are responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of the support provided to asylum seekers in their region.
	* Figures rounded to nearest 10. We cannot say categorically that all dispersals were from the south-east of England.

Visa Applications

Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about granting visas to Egyptian students in the past 2 months; and if he will make a statement.

Beverley Hughes: I have received no such recent representations.

Asylum Seekers

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are receiving cash-only support; and if he will make a statement.

Beverley Hughes: As at the end of March 2002, 30,740* asylum seekers (including dependants) were receiving subsistence only support1 from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).
	Statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS are available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website: http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration.1.html.
	1 Subsistence only support changed to cash only support in April 2002.
	*Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.
	Figures exclude cases where the asylum seekers support has been ceased.

Asylum Seekers

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2002, Ref 62529 on asylum seekers, when he expects to publish the research examining the reception policies of (a) Sweden, (b) Denmark, (c) the Netherlands and (d) Germany.

Beverley Hughes: The research commissioned by the Home Office on the reception policies of Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany will be published by the end of 2002. This date is provisional, subject to the work being completed on schedule by the research contractors and to Research, Development and Statistics (RDS) publication procedures (including peer review).

Retail Crime

Brian Cotter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 2002, to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) Official Report, column 605W, on retail crime, if he will list for each regional crime reduction director, the amount spent on business crime in 2001–02.

John Denham: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on 22 July 2002, Official Report, columns 862W.

Motorcyclists

Lembit �pik: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on motorcyclists of the proposed establishment of law enforcing arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

John Denham: 'Policing a New Century: a Blueprint for Reform' made no specific reference to motorcyclists. One of its themes, however, was the effective tackling of anti-social behaviour. The anti-social use of motorcycles has been a particular issue and growing concern in some areas, for example where the motorcycles have been raced around estates, across public footpaths or over public parks.
	The Police Reform Act was introduced by the Government to take forward the proposals in 'Policing a New Century. Amongst its provisions, the Government have given the police new powers to deal with the anti-social use of motor vehicles, including motorcycles. It is already an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to drive inconsiderately on public roads or off-road without consent. The Act now provides an addition that if a vehicle committing one of these offences is being driven in such a way that it is causing or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public, a constable in uniform will be empowered to stop and seize it. A constable will be able to enter premises other than a private dwelling to effect the seizure. The owner will be able to retrieve the vehicle on payment of removal and storage charges. Detailed arrangements will be made by regulation and will ensure that the owner is not required to pay when the vehicle was used without his consent.
	The new power will enable the police to deal with motorcycle nuisance more effectively by putting an immediate stop to such anti-social behaviour.

Special Advisers

Andrew Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the (a) dates, (b) location and (c) sources were of attributable (i) articles, interviews or contributions for the media, books or other journals and (ii) speeches or presentations made in the public domain, by departmental special advisers since March 2001; who in his Department authorised the activity; and on what date this activity was recorded with the departmental Head of Information.

David Blunkett: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister (Mr. Blair) on 24 July 2002, Official Report, column 1373W.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Waste Disposal

Andrew Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
	(1)  how many waste disposal incinerators in the UK have planning permission but are not yet operating; and where they are sited;
	(2)  how many planning applications for waste disposal incinerators are awaiting determination by planning authorities in the United Kingdom; and where they are sited.

Tony McNulty: I have been asked to reply.
	Information about individual planning applications in England is not reported to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The position in other parts of the UK is a matter for the devolved administrations.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Public Services

Ashok Kumar: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the work of the (a) Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, (b) Social Exclusion Unit and (c) Regional Co-ordination Unit will be co-ordinated within his new Department; and what impact this will have on the joined-up delivery of inclusive public services at a regional level.

John Prescott: The Social Exclusion Unit and the Regional Co-Ordination Unit were both previously based in the Cabinet Office. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will also include, among other responsibilities, the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. As Minister of State for Social Exclusion, Regional Co-ordination, Neighbourhood Renewal and Minister for Women and Equality, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will ensure a co-ordinated approach on these policy areas.

Public Service Agreements

David Laws: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many and what proportion of the public service agreements of his Department set out in the document XPublic Services for the Future 1998 have been met; and if he will make a statement.

Christopher Leslie: The relevant 1998 and 2000 PSA targets were transferred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions following the recent Machinery of Government changes. Therefore, a complete list of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's PSA targets is available in the DTLR Annual Report 2002 published on 10 June. The report provides details of progress against PSA targets including those which have been met.

Empty Properties (London)

Don Foster: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the empty residential properties in each London borough in the ownership of his Department and its agencies, giving (a) the type of accommodation, (b) how long each property has been vacant and (c) what the intended future use is of the property.

Christopher Leslie: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister currently owns no empty residential properties in any of the London boroughs.

Housing Regeneration

Don Foster: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much (a) public and (b) private money has been invested in housing regeneration in each of the last five years.

Tony McNulty: As regeneration is not limited to housing projects, details of expenditure cannot be broken down as requested.
	Public funding for housing regeneration is provided through a variety of programmes. The Housing Corporation has a target for housing regeneration, which is 65 per cent. of Approved Development Programme (ADP) grant approvals for each year; in 200102 86 per cent. of approvals were for regeneration. Housing also plays an integral part in many specific regeneration programmes, such as New Deal for Communities.
	Public funding for housing regeneration is also provided through local authority housing capital expenditure. However, this is not broken down to provide details of all regeneration expenditure. The following information is available from Housing Investment Programme returns: Housing Capital Expenditure (# million)
	
		
			  199798 outturn 199899 outturn 19992000 outturn 200001 outturn 200102 planned 
		
		
			 Housing within the Housing Revenue Account 1,563 1,660 1,569 1,815 2,326 
			 Local Authority Social Housing Grant 329 336 329 406 530 
			 Other Support for RSLs 2 22 20 27 24 
			 Other housing in the private sector 468 493 500 529 569 Of which:  
			 Private sector renewal grants 310 319 321 293 288 
			 Private sector clearance 22 22 19 30 40 
			 Other (including disabled facilities grant) 136 152 160 206 240 
			 Total Housing Capital Expenditure 2,366 2,511 2,418 2,777 3,448 
		
	
	Private sector funding for housing regeneration is levered in through a number of avenues, including through the private finance initiative (PFI), and through large-scale voluntary transfer (LSVT) of local authority housing. We have no overall figures for the level of private money invested in housing regeneration.

Housing Funding

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes to levels of housing funding for each region there have been between 200102 and 200203.

Tony McNulty: A regional breakdown of the main funding stream for housing provided by central government in these two years are set out below. The figures cover Housing Revenue Account Subsidy (including the Major Repairs Allowance), Housing Investment Programme allocations to local authorities and the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme.
	
		
			  200102 (# million) 200203 (# million) Per cent. change 
		
		
			 North East 377 368 -2 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 596 602 +1 
			 East Midlands 355 348 -2 
			 East of England 297 302 +2 
			 London 2,266 2,339 +3 
			 South East 405 431 +6 
			 South West 263 273 +4 
			 West Midlands 591 565 -4 
			 North West 918 867 -5 
			 Total 6,068 6,096

Planning

Keith Vaz: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many planning matters were being considered by Ministers on 22 July.

Tony McNulty: At any one time Ministers have under consideration a large number of planning matters including ones concerning the operation of the system, the development and application of planning policy and decisions on called-in planning cases or recovered appeals. Major national issues on 22 July would have included the planning aspects of the statement to the House on 18 July by the Deputy Prime Minster on XSustainable Communities, Housing and Planning and taking forward the proposals for reform of the planning system set out in the policy statement XSustainable CommunitiesDelivering through Planning published the same day. Just over 2,100 cases were under consideration at various stages of the planning process, in the Government Offices, the Planning Inspectorate or directly before the First Secretary of State for decision.

Government Business (Overseas)

Chris Grayling: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many days he has spent on Government business overseas in the past 12 months.

John Prescott: In the twelve months since 1 July 2001, I have spent 34 working days overseas on Government business, deputising for the Prime Minister in the run-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

Social Services

Clive Efford: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the average percentage increases in social services budgets in London boroughs; and what were the increases in (a) social services SSAs and (b) revenue support grants (i) for each local authority and (ii) for London as a whole in each of the last five years.

Jacqui Smith: I have been asked to reply.
	The tables below provide the amounts and percentage increases in social services budgets, personal social services standard spending assessment and revenue grants paid by this Department for each local authority in inner and outer London and for London as a whole, for each of the last five years. The percentage increases do not reflect the changes in functions, and are not therefore, on a like for like basis. Budget figures are not available yet for 200203.
	
		Personal Social Services Budgets 199798 to 200102
		
			  199798 Increase 199899 Increase 19992000 Increase 200001 Increase 200102 Increase 
			  # million Per cent. # million Per cent. # million Per cent. # million Per cent. # million Per cent. 
		
		
			 Inner London 
			 City of London 4.851 6.0 4.925 1.5 5.073 3.0 5.838 15.1 7.595 30.1 
			 Camden 73.450 12.2 79.434 8.1 83.763 5.4 88.859 6.1 93.384 5.1 
			 Greenwich 60.872 3.3 63.217 3.9 72.498 14.7 79.992 10.3 83.700 4.6 
			 Hackney (Provisional for 200102) 79.922 1.9 80.163 0.3 95.620 19.3 91.020 -4.8 95.071 4.5 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 59.446 15.3 62.930 5.9 73.517 16.8 69.830 -5.0 73.512 5.3 
			 Islington 75.122 7.7 72.222 -3.9 74.997 3.8 84.543 12.7 104.069 23.1 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 53.642 11.7 57.416 7.0 62.527 8.9 67.022 7.2 71.915 7.3 
			 Lambeth 97.948 13.4 97.511 -0.4 104.777 7.5 112.703 7.6 121.500 7.8 
			 Lewisham 71.431 14.2 78.520 9.9 88.580 12.8 92.969 5.0 93.204 0.3 
			 Southwark 85.970 2.6 87.675 2.0 92,220 5.2 113,811 23.4 129.375 13.7 
			 Tower Hamlets 67.838 12.5 71.932 6.0 75.881 5.5 78.987 4.1 85.668 8.5 
			 Wandsworth 77.126 -1.1 81.078 5.1 82.280 1.5 85.833 4.3 88.099 2.6 
			 Westminster 82.901 15.3 76.472 -7.8 95.784 25.3 100.342 4.8 100.758 0.4 
			 Outer London 
			 Barking and Dagenham 35.750 6.5 37.582 5.1 50.647 34.8 57.904 14.3 61.147 5.6 
			 Barnet 65.342 14.5 69.971 7.1 75.272 7.6 77.849 3.4 90.492 16.2 
			 Bexley 35.114 11.1 38.864 10.7 43.669 12.4 44.755 2.5 47.420 6.0 
			 Brent 59.597 5.0 60.814 2.0 71.898 18.2 70.758 -1.6 75.660 6.9 
			 Bromley 48.271 7.5 52.372 8.5 61.556 17.5 63.371 2.9 68.108 7.5 
			 Croydon 63.051 8.2 65.925 4.6 77.256 17.2 78.238 1.3 83.164 6.3 
			 Ealing 58.068 6.6 62.179 7.1 66.288 6.6 71.049 7.2 85.027 19.7 
			 Enfield 53,479 3.2 55.528 3.8 56.209 1.2 62.337 10.9 75.504 21.1 
			 Haringey 60.880 4.0 62.521 2.7 64.379 3.0 63.649 -1.1 110.873 74.2 
			 Harrow 43.961 11.9 46.336 5.5 48.776 5.2 49.744 2.0 56.187 13.0 
			 Havering 38.568 3.9 40.021 3.8 42.342 5.8 42.972 1.5 42.156 -1.9 
			 Hillingdon 44.117 4.8 50.319 14.1 62.789 24.8 66.664 6.2 74.366 11.6 
			 Hounslow 45.740 6.1 49.002 7.1 51.548 5.2 56.958 10.5 60.627 6.4 
			 Kingston upon Thames 26.868 5.9 28.428 5.8 31.323 10.2 31.958 2.0 35.136 9.9 
			 Merton 33.803 5.9 33.347 -1.3 37.434 12.3 43.155 15.3 47.931 11.1 
			 Newham 75.075 16.1 80.408 7.1 91.025 13.2 94.894 4.3 102.872 8.4 
			 Redbridge 41.471 8.1 42.535 2.6 49.308 15.9 61.607 24.9 63.597 8.4 
			 Richmond upon Thames 31.747 10.0 32.837 3.4 33.794 2.9 35.418 4.8 35.715 0.8 
			 Sutton 30.791 4.8 32.682 6.1 35.794 9.5 38.022 6.2 42.127 10.8 
			 Waltham Forest 56.877 7.2 58.640 3.1 60.497 3.2 60.367 -0.2 63.068 4.5 
			 Total London Boroughs 1,839.089 8.2 1,913.836 4.1 2,119.321 10.7 2,243.418 5.9 2,469.027 10.1 
		
	
	
		Personal Social Services Standard Spending Assessment199899 to 200203
		
			  199899 Increase 19992000 Increase 200001 Increase 200102 Increase 200203 Increase 
			  # million Per cent. # million Per cent. # million Per cent. # million Per cent. # million Per cent. 
		
		
			 Inner London 
			 City of London 1,563 0.1 2.141 36.9 2.234 4.4 2.349 5.1 2.719 15.8 
			 Camden 61.751 0.3 62.276 0.9 65.504 5.2 68.067 3.9 70.583 3.7 
			 Greenwich 54.460 2.1 59.829 9.9 62.953 5.2 63.824 1.4 65.076 2.0 
			 Hackney 74.325 -1.8 70.924 -4.6 75.190 6.0 77.171 2.6 79.011 2.4 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 47.201 0.5 47.450 0.5 49.832 5.0 51.577 3.5 53.158 3.1 
			 Islington 62.989 2.2 63.842 1.4 67.969 6.5 67.954 0.0 69.045 1.6 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 41.484 2.8 42.924 3.5 46.549 8.4 49.290 5.9 52.229 6.0 
			 Lambeth 88.775 2.3 85.677 -3.5 90.876 6.1 92.374 1.6 94.026 1.8 
			 Lewisham 71.877 3.6 72.399 0.7 75.338 4.1 75.867 0.7 76.783 1.2 
			 Southwark 74.806 1.6 81.220 8.6 85.596 5.4 87.510 2.2 89.270 2.0 
			 Tower Hamlets 63.511 7.6 70.136 10.4 73.557 4.9 75.331 2.4 77.100 2.3 
			 Wandsworth 68.153 1.7 70.929 4.1 73.659 3.8 74.746 1.5 75.614 1.2 
			 Westminster 58.871 1.8 63.180 7.3 67.906 7.5 71.692 5.6 75.500 5.3 
			 Outer London 
			 Barking and Dagenham 33.451 8.3 40.115 19.9 42.391 5.7 44.148 4.1 44.826 1.5 
			 Barnet 56.293 9.0 57.160 1.5 60.378 5.6 63.692 5.5 65.811 3.3 
			 Bexley 30.511 11.3 34.958 14.6 36.583 4.6 38.251 4.6 39.540 3.4 
			 Brent 62.388 8.4 57.980 -7.1 60.324 4.0 61.747 2.4 63.013 2.0 
			 Bromley 42.433 6.8 45.988 8.4 47.478 3.2 49.695 4.7 51.120 2.9 
			 Croydon 55.453 6.7 57.303 3.3 59.888 4.5 61.631 2.9 63.255 2.6 
			 Ealing 62.257 8.7 62.472 0.3 65.415 4.7 68.086 4.1 69.048 1.4 
			 Enfield 47.445 9.6 51.591 8.7 54.113 4.9 56.839 5.0 58.442 2.8 
			 Haringey 60.534 4.0 56.376 -6.9 59.406 5.4 61.138 2.9 61.992 1.4 
			 Harrow 34.686 12.8 35.983 3.7 37.664 4.7 39.300 4.3 40.628 3.4 
			 Havering 31.752 10.5 34.526 8.7 36.336 5.2 38.514 6.0 39.890 3.6 
			 Hillingdon 37.911 7.3 40.156 5.9 42.237 5.2 44.054 4.3 45.505 3.3 
			 Hounslow 40.673 4.3 42.113 3.5 44.080 4.7 45.783 3.9 46.255 1.0 
			 Kingston upon Thames 20.269 5.9 21.483 6.0 22.456 4.5 23.387 4.1 24.163 3.3 
			 Merton 30.422 7.4 33.010 8.5 34.067 3.2 35.052 2.9 35.888 2.4 
			 Newham 65.129 7.2 62.896 -3.4 66.482 5.7 68.797 3.5 70.048 1.8 
			 Redbridge 39.465 12.4 41.741 5.8 43.796 4.9 45.514 3.9 46.622 2.4 
			 Richmond upon Thames 26.442 4.7 27.734 4.9 29.171 5.2 30.779 5.5 31.648 2.8 
			 Sutton 27.193 7.0 29.319 7.8 30.153 2.8 31.174 3.4 32.095 3.0 
			 Waltham Forest 51.887 7.2 54.001 4.1 56.118 3.9 56.900 1.4 57.612 1.3 
			 Total London Boroughs 1,626.361 5.0 1,679.830 3.3 1,765.698 5.1 1,822.230 3.2 1,867.515 2.5 
		
	
	
		PSS Revenue Grants
		
			  199899 Increase 19992000 Increase 200001 Increase 200102 Increase 200203 Increase 
			  # million Per cent. # million Per cent. # million Per cent. # million Per cent. # million Per cent. 
		
		
			 Inner London 
			 City of London 0.195 36.7 0.182 -6.4 1.601 778.3 1.558 -2.7 0.462 -70.4 
			 Camden 3.621 -5.4 4.798 32.5 5.438 13.4 8.490 56.1 13.228 55.8 
			 Greenwich 3.046 -0.1 3.821 25.4 4.375 14.5 7.345 67.9 11.817 60.9 
			 Hackney 3.776 -2.2 5.013 32.8 6.023 20.1 9.673 60.6 14.210 46.9 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 3.170 -1.3 4.005 26.3 4.381 9.4 6.962 58.9 11.478 64.9 
			 Islington 3.348 1.8 4.469 33.5 5.135 14.9 8.480 65.1 14.127 66.6 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 2.882 -6.9 4.235 47.0 4.146 -2.1 6.130 47.9 9.968 62.6 
			 Lambeth 4.481 -2.0 6.273 40.0 7.465 19.0 12.357 65.5 21.702 75.6 
			 Lewisham 3.849 6.3 5.105 32.6 5.969 16.9 9.558 60.1 14.090 47.4 
			 Southwark 4.186 2.3 5.744 37.2 6.701 16.7 11.103 65.7 17.972 61.9 
			 Tower Hamlets 3.623 10.0 4.897 35.2 5.447 11.2 8.918 63.7 13.216 48.2 
			 Wandsworth 3.972 -1.8 4.902 23.4 5.600 14.2 8.735 56.0 15.989 83.1 
			 Westminster 3.711 -5.2 4.674 26.0 5.387 15.2 8.360 53.3 14.072 70.4 
			 Outer London 
			 Barking and Dagenham 2.028 7.2 2.316 14.2 2.598 12.2 4.668 79.7 6.953 49.0 
			 Barnet 3.298 9.3 3.774 14.4 4.228 12.0 6.871 62.5 12.549 82.6 
			 Bexley 1.932 9.3 2.196 13.7 2.431 10.7 4.012 65.0 8.317 107.3 
			 Brent 2.919 10.1 4.034 38.2 4.804 19.1 7.642 59.1 11.498 50.5 
			 Bromley 2.459 5.8 2.780 13.1 3.102 11.6 5.578 79.8 11.508 106.3 
			 Croydon 2.971 10.3 3.829 28.9 4.371 14.2 7.199 64.7 15.217 111.4 
			 Ealing 3.233 7.1 4.167 28.9 4.837 16.1 7.898 63.3 13.290 68.3 
			 Enfield 2.684 11.0 3.201 19.3 3.644 13.8 6.404 75.7 12.208 90.6 
			 Haringey 2.889 3.1 4.125 42.8 4.849 17.5 8.078 66.6 14.440 78.8 
			 Harrow 2.090 17.5 2.330 11.5 2.616 12.3 4.161 59.1 6.542 57.2 
			 Havering 1.945 13.2 2.157 10.9 2.396 11.1 4.143 72.9 7.152 72.6 
			 Hillingdon 2.319 6.7 2.702 16.6 3.068 13.5 5.294 72.6 8.086 52.7 
			 Hounslow 2.238 3.7 2.848 27.3 3.238 13.7 5.010 54.7 8.535 70.4 
			 Kingston upon Thames 1.351 12.0 1.633 20.9 1.760 7.8 2.841 61.4 5.630 98.2 
			 Merton 1.996 6.0 2.360 18.2 2.737 16.0 4.209 53.8 6.920 64.4 
			 Newham 3.498 13.3 4.792 37.0 5.599 16.8 9.032 61.3 13.716 51.9 
			 Redbridge 2.286 16.2 2.554 11.7 2.861 12.0 4.716 64.8 7.869 66.9 
			 Richmond upon Thames 1.694 2.5 1.912 12.9 2.082 8.9 3.391 62.9 5.680 67.5 
			 Sutton 1.591 4.0 1.815 14.1 2.055 13.2 3.333 62.2 6.939 108.2 
			 Waltham Forest 2.906 6.1 3.510 20.8 3.974 13.2 6.786 70.8 11.137 64.1 
			 Total London Boroughs 92.185 4.2 117.152 27.1 134.919 15.2 218.836 62.2 366.514 67.5

HOME DEPARTMENT

Female Staff

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the staff of his Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997.

Beverley Hughes: I refer the hon Member to the reply given to him by my hon Friend, Member for Paisley South (Mr. Alexander) on 5 July 2002, Official Report, column 622W.

Design Champion

Debra Shipley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2002, Official Report, column 1223W, on the Design Champion, which two projects the departmental Design Champion is sponsoring.

Beverley Hughes: My noble Friend Lord Filkin (the Departmental Design Champion) is sponsoring the new Home Office in Marsham Street, Westminster, and is considering the selection of a second project. He will make this known when a decision has been made.

Retail Crime

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what assessment he has made of the correlation between retail crime and street crime;
	(2)  if he will make a statement on his assessment of the correlation between retail crime and drug abuse.

John Denham: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Brighton Pavilion (David Lepper) on 23 August 2002, Official Report, column 19W.

Retail Crime

Brian Cotter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in the Partnership Development Fund for crime reduction in the last year.

John Denham: The Partnership Development Fund aims to build the capacity of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships to manage the implementation of local projects and strategies to deliver and sustain crime and disorder reduction in their area. The fund enables Crime Reduction Directors located at Government Offices in the Regions and in the National Assembly for Wales to target resources locally. Allocations have been made to Directors totalling #15.54 million in this current financial year.

Street Crime

David Cameron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the responsibilities of Ministers in his Department relating to specific initiatives and in particular police areas in respect of street crime.

John Denham: As Minister of State for crime reduction, policing and community safety and children and young people, I have specific responsibility for the street crime initiative within the Home Office.
	I and nine other Ministers from across Government Departments were asked by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister (Mr. Blair) in May to act as Xsponsor Ministers for the 10 police force areas covered by the street crime initiatives. Their role is to work with the areas' street crime partnerships to ensure that local systems for dealing with street crime victims and offenders are working effectively.
	The 10 street crime sponser Ministers are:
	The right hon. Baroness Blackstone: Avon  Somerset
	The right hon. Lord Falconer: Greater Manchester
	Hazel Blears: Lancashire
	John Denham: London
	Yvette Cooper: Merseyside
	Ruth Kelly: Nottinghamshire
	Barbara Roche: Thames Valley
	The right hon. Lord Rooker: West Midlands
	Stephen Twigg: South Yorkshire
	Hilary Benn: West Yorkshire.

Crime Reduction

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in the partnership development fund for crime reduction in the last year.

John Denham: The Partnership Development Fund aims to build the capacity of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships to manage the implementation of local projects and strategies to deliver and sustain crime and disorder reduction in their area. The fund enables Crime Reduction Directors located at Government Offices in the Regions and in the National Assembly for Wales to target resources locally. An allocation has been made to Directors totalling #15.54 million in this current financial year.

Equipment Leasing

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case.

Beverley Hughes: The Department does not hold detailed information on expenditure for all equipment leasing arrangements. To provide a full answer would incur disproportionate cost, however, the Department's main leasing arrangements are for the supply of photocopiers and fax machines, the majority of which are provided by Canon and Xerox. I am able to provide these details as follows:
	
		# 
		
			 Year Canon Xerox Total  
		
		
			 2000 1,420,112 15,168 1,435,280 
			 2001 1,932,127 24,765 1,956,892 
			 2002 to date 1,531,517 9,541 1,541,058 
			  
			 Total   4,933,230

Correspondence

Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 30 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Vida Obiri Yebdah Burgess.

Beverley Hughes: I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I provided to him on 15 July 2002, Official Report, column 108W.

Correspondence

Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 5 June from the right hon Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Liaqat Ali.

David Blunkett: I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 17 July 2002.

Correspondence

Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East of 17 June about Mr. Faut Altunyurt (Ref A 183001).

Beverley Hughes: holding answer 22 July 2002
	I wrote on behalf of my right Hon Friend the Home Secretary to the hon Member on 30 September 2002.

Correspondence

Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Blackpool, South dated 13 December 2001, ref 925/2.

John Denham: holding answer 1 July 2002
	I replied to the hon. Member for Blackpool South on 27 September 2002.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate

Annabelle Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which Scottish newspapers the post of Director-General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has been advertised.

Beverley Hughes: holding answer 11 July 2002
	The post of Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was advertised in the following media:
	Sunday Times
	The Guardian and Observer
	The Voice
	New Nation and Asian Times
	Caribbean Times
	African Times
	Eastern Eye.
	Odgers Ray and Berndtson, the consultancy service used to administer the campaign, also advertised the post via the Internet.
	No newspapers exclusive to Scotland were targeted during this recruitment campaign.

Open Source Software

Brian White: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in his Department.

Beverley Hughes: The choice of software to meet the business needs of the Home Office now largely rests with its strategic ISIT suppliers who are contracted, largely under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), to meet business requirements and provide value for money solutions, including the consideration of open source solutions. In the main, the Home Office no longer chooses specific software. Within our business requirements the Home Office ensure that any technical choices should meet relevant government software standards and provide for interoperability with our public and business partners. The Home Office supports and will respond where appropriate to Office of Government Commerce competition initiatives which encourage the availability of choice in the software marketplace. The Government's policy for Open Source Software was published in July 2002 and is available at the following web address http://www.govtalk.gov.uk
	Current suppliers to the Home Office are not known to extensively use, or have plans for implementing, open source software. None of the major non-PFI delivered projects utilise open source software.

Victims of Crimes

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from the public concerning the position of victims of crimes.

Hilary Benn: The Home Office receives regular correspondence from victims of crime. Home Office Ministers and officials also have regular contact with Victim Support and other organisations representing victims of crime and take victims' views fully into account when developing policy.

Police

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many police sub-stations were open in each constabulary in each of the last five years;
	(2)  how many police stations were open to the public 24 hours per day in each constabulary in each of the last five years.

John Denham: I refer the hon Member to the reply given to the hon Member for Maidenhead (Theresa May) on 22 July 2002, Official Report, column 829W on the number of functioning police stations in police forces in each year since 1997.
	Information on how many stations are open 24 hours per day is not collected centrally.

Police

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average daily number of mobile traffic units operating radar guns in the Metropolitan Police area has been for the last 12 months for which figures are available.

Bob Ainsworth: Radar guns are a type of hand-held mobile speed detection device for use at the roadside. There are also laser devices used in the same way. The Government does not collect information about the use of such devices. The Metropolitan Police estimate that on any given day there are at least seven mobile hand-held speed detection devices for roadside use taken out in police patrol vehicles across London.

Substance Abuse

Phil Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is available through his Department for (a) education on, and (b) prevention of, volatile substance abuse.

Bob Ainsworth: Information about the dangers of volatile substance abuse is provided as part of drug education in schools. This is funded by the Department of Health, for whom volatile substance abuse is also a priority. The Department will, however, be issuing #4.5 million in 200203 to support the delivery of Young People Substance Misuse Plans. These plans are developed by all Drug Action Teams to outline how services will be expanded so that all young people requiring drugs services receive them. This will incorporate education and prevention of volatile substance misuse.

Sangatte Protocol

Roger Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants have been returned to France since June 1997 under the terms of the Sangatte Protocol.

Beverley Hughes: holding answer 20 June 2002
	An agreement was signed with France dated 20 April 1995 in relation to the taking back of passengers who are refused admission on arrival in the United Kingdom (Xthe 1995 Agreement).
	That agreement covers, among other things, the arrival of persons through the Channel Tunnel and therefore has the effect of qualifying the Sangatte Protocol. But it also relates to passengers travelling between France and United Kingdom via the Channel ports. The 1995 Agreement provided that, in relation to asylum seekers, it would be superseded by the relevant provisions of the Dublin Convention once that Convention came into force. The Dublin Convention came into force on 1 September 1997. Therefore, from that dates in relation to those claiming asylum, the provisions of the Dublin Convention prevail in so far as that Convention determines which State is responsible for deciding the claim.
	Figures for illegal entrants returned to France under the 1995 Agreement from June 1997 are not available, but locally collated management statistics from 2001 onwards indicate that, in 2001, 6,828 passengers who arrived at the port of Dover who did not claim asylum and did not qualify for entry to the United Kingdom, were returned to France under the 1995 Agreement. In the first quarter of 2002 that figure was 2,385.

Commonwealth Games (Policing Costs)

Graham Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out his timetable for deciding whether further special grants will be paid to Greater Manchester Police in respect of the cost of policing the Commonwealth Games.

John Denham: holding answer 8 March 2002
	I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 May 2002, Official Report, column 603W.

Entitlement Identity Card

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the efficacy of computer technology in matching fingerprints.

John Denham: With the introduction of the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS), all of the fingerprint bureaux of England and Wales now have the ability to access, store and search national databases of both Xten-prints from arrestees and marks from scenes of crime. The ability to automate the processing of fingerprints is a huge efficiency gain for the Police Service, where previously this was an extremely labour intensive process.
	While the main advantage of NAFIS is speed of search, human expertise is still required. At the forefront of fingerprint detection is the multi-disciplined team of photographers, biologists and chemists who are tasked to enhance the retrieval of fingerprint at crime scenes, and the fingerprint Officers who verify matches and make the identification of marks from scenes of crime.
	Response times using NAFIS have meant that arresting officers can now definitively identify persons in custody and associate them with any previous criminal history, in under an hour. Scenes of crime mark searching have equally benefited from the introduction of NAFIS and it is possible for fingerprint bureaux to obtain the responses to searches against the entire National database in under an hour.

Trunk Radio Systems

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the possible health implications of the use of the Terrestrial Trunk Radio Systems within the airwave network; and what reports he studied in order to reach conclusions from his assessment.

John Denham: holding answer 17 December 2001
	British Telecom operate the Terrestrial Trunk Radio (TETRA) systems that form part of the infrastructure which supports the Airwave network. Network operators in the United Kingdom are obliged by law to ensure that all of their installations are compliant with Health and Safety legislation. This legislation is enacted to ensure that all workers and members of the public are protected, in line with National Radiological Protection Board recommendations. There are no unique features of the TETRA systems used in support of the Airwave network that would require special assessment.
	The Home Office takes an active interest in Airwave health and safety issues and is sponsoring a programme of work to address the recommendations of independent scientific experts. These recommendations relate to the mobile radio part of the nextwork, which uses TETRA technology. Details of this work are available on the Home Office website.

Security Industry Authority

Phyllis Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Security Industry Authority will enforce training standards for (a) door supervisors, (b) wheel clampers and (c) other sectors within the security industry.

John Denham: We expect that training and competency standards for door supervisors and wheel-clampers will be published in April 2003, with those for other sectors following at later dates. Enforcement of those standards will begin with the introduction of personal licensing on a phased basis from late 2003.

Performance Targets

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 4 March 2002, Official Report, column 49W, on performance targets, if he will list the targets set since May 1997, including the new and revised versions of those targets amended; which have been achieved; what the target date is for each target; and if he will make a statement.

Beverley Hughes: Tables detailing the target set since May 1997 in the 1998 and 2000 spending reviews (SR) respectively have been placed in the Library.
	Public Service Agreement Targets were set in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review and the 2000 Spending Review. These targets, and performance against them, are published every year in the Home Office annual reports and are available routinely on the Home Office website. Progress made in 200102 will be reported to Parliament in this year's Annual Report.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Southern Africa (Food Needs)

Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department, in liaison with other donors, is doing to address long-term food security needs in Southern Africa; and if she will make a statement.

Clare Short: DFID has committed #14 million to help agricultural recovery in the coming maize season in Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe. Jointly with other donors, we are providing sector assistance for agriculture in Malawi and Mozambique. We are also supporting work by the Southern Africa Development Community to facilitate analysis and understanding of food security in the region, to improve national capacity for vulnerability assessment, and to reduce contraints to intra-regional trade in food. ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

EU Committees

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Standing Committee on feedingstuffs is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: I have been asked to reply.
	I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that, as from 21 February this year, the Standing Committee for Animal Nutrition, which was responsible forfeedingstuffs, was replaced by the Animal Nutrition Section of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in accordance with EC Regulation 178/2002. The United Kingdom is normally represented on the Committee by officials from the Food Standards Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Scottish Executive is kept fully informed and consulted about issues before the Committee, and there is no bar to representatives of the Scottish Executive attending as part of the UK delegation, should the subject matter required this. The Animal Nutrition Section of the Standing Committee is next due to meet on 13 and 14 November 2002.

HEALTH

Mental Health Services

Shaun Woodward: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in mental healthcare facilities there were in (a) St Helens and Knowsley Health Authority, (b) Merseyside, (c) the North West and (d) England in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999, (v) 2000 and (vi) 2001; and what the projected amounts are for (1) 2002 and (2) 2003.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 23 July 2002
	The information requested is not available centrally in the form requested. The table shows the number of National Heath Service mental health beds in the north west region and England for 199697 to 200001.
	The NHS Plan published in July 2000 included extra annual investment of over #300 million by 200304 to fast-forward the implementation of the mental health national service framework published in September 1999.
	Local services are engaged in the implementation of new service models such as early intervention, assertive outreach and crisis resolution, which aim to provide alternatives to in-patient care.
	
		NHS Mental Health Beds in England and North West Region 199697 to 200001
		
			 Year England North West 
		
		
			 199697 37,640 5,171 
			 199798 36,601 5,030 
			 199899 35,692 4,748 
			 19992000 34,173 4,636 
			 20002001 34,214 4,499 
		
	
	The table below shows the number of mental health nursing beds in private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics intended for people with mental health problems from 1998 to 2001.
	
		At 31 MarchRounded numbers 
		
			  1998 1999 2000 2001 
		
		
			 St Helens  Knowsley HA 210 210 210 210 
			 Merseyside 1,580 1,640 1,480 1,580 
			 North West 5,130 5,340 5,560 5,000 
			 England 26,770 29,000 28,650 28,780 
		
	
	Source:
	Department of Health's annual returns
	Information for 1996 and 1997 is not readily available. Projections for 2002 and 2003 are not available.

Mental Health Services

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisation is responsible for the disposal of the remaining NHS mental hospital sites in Epsom.

Jacqui Smith: NHS Estates, an executive agency of the Department is the accountable body for disposals of land in the Secretary of State for Health's ownership, which has been declared surplus to National Health Service requirements.
	The agency therefore has responsibility for the disposal of the remaining hospital sites in the Epsom Cluster namely, Horton, West Park and St Ebba's.
	The sale of Horton hospital is expected to be concluded soon.
	West Park and St Ebba's have been marketed as part of the one off sale of the Secretary of State for Health's retained estate as provided for in the NHS Plan. However discussions have been opened with the parents and relatives group regarding the possible re-development of St Ebba's as a village community for mental health reprovision.

Mental Health Services

Shaun Woodward: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) mental health nurses, (b) doctors specialising in mental health care there were and what was (i) the estimated shortfall in mental health nurses and (ii) the estimated shortfall in doctors specialising in mental health care in (A) St Helens and Knowsley Health Authority, (B) Merseyside, (C) the North West and (D) England in (1996), (2) 1997, (3) 1998, (4) 1999, (2000) and (6) 2001; and what the projected amounts are for (x) 2002 and (y) 2003.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 23 July 2002
	The number of nurses working in mental health between 1996 and 2001 is shown in table 1. The estimated need for additional nurses was included in the NHS Plan and manifesto targets for increasing nurse numbers. Both targets have been met ahead of schedule.
	The number of doctors working in mental health is shown in table 2. The need for additional consultants in mental health is recognised in the NHS Plan target for 7,500 more consultants by 2004 than there were in 1999. This target has been broken down by strategic health authority (StHA), and indicative requirements for increases by speciality have been included. The indicative increase for consultants working in mental health within Cheshire and Merseyside StHA, which includes St Helens  Knowsley Health Authority, in 2004 will be 23 or 34 per cent.
	
		Table 1 -- NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff employed in Mental Health1 within the specified areas as at 30 September each yearWhole-time equivalent (wte)
		
			  1996 wteheadcount 1997 wteheadcount 1998 wteheadcount 1999 wteheadcount 2000 wteheadcount 2001 wteheadcount 
		
		
			 England 46,160 50,930 45,180 50,220 43,960 48,880 43,750 48,920 44,200 49,030 45,410 51,320 
			 North West 6,640 7,420 6,420 7,050 6,220 6,850 6,080 6,790 6,170 6,740 5,980 6,510 
			 Merseyside2 950 1,010 1,160 1,230 1,150 1,240 1,030 1,100 1,030 1,100 1,040 1,120 
			 St Helens  Knowsley HA 240 260 230 250 230 240 220 230 220 230 230 240 
		
	
	Notes:
	1Mental Health consists of Community Psychiatry and Learning disabilities and Other Psychiatry and Learning disabilities
	2Merseyside includes Liverpool HA, Sefton HA, St. Helens and Knowsley HA and Wirrall HA
	Due to the new Regional Office boundaries in 1999 the 1996 to 1998 figures are estimated regional splits.
	Figures are rounded to the nearest ten
	Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts
	Figures exclude agency staff
	Source:
	Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census
	
		Table 2 -- Hospital, medical staff within the psychiatry group specialty, in the North West Region by specified Health Authority as at 30 September numbers and whole time equivalents (wte)
		
			  1996numberwte 1997numberwte 1998numberwte 1999numberwte 2000numberwte 2001numberwte 
		
		
			 England 6,310 5,210 6,620 5,540 6,900 5,820 7,210 6,070 7,420 6,390 7,440 6,370 
			 of which 
			  
			 North West Region 760 640 770 650 810 700 830 710 850 740 840 720 
			 of which 
			 St Helens  Knowsley HA 30 30 30 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 40 30 
		
	
	Note:
	Figures are rounded to the nearest ten
	Source:
	Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

Mental Health Services

John Horam: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet with (a) the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and (b) local patient groups to discuss the specialist mental health physiotherapy team at Oxleas NHS Trust.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 22 July 2002
	I have no plans to meet with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists or local patient groups to discuss the specialist mental health physiotherapy team at Oxleas National Health Service Trust.
	I understand that Oxleas NHS Trust has had discussions on this matter with Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich Community Health Councils and the trust's user council and has also informed other interested parties including primary care trusts, hon. Members and a range of NHS and other non-statutory providers.
	Oxleas NHS Trust has also had several meetings with a representative of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and are arranging a further meeting with the chief executive of the society to discuss this issue further.

Mental Health Services

John Horam: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if he will make a statement on the role of multidisciplinary services for the treatment of mental health patients;
	(2)  if he will make a statement on the role of specialist physiotherapy services in the implementation and delivery of the National Health Service Framework on Mental Health.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 22 July 2002
	The national service framework for mental health emphasises the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach to care and treatment. There is good evidence that regular physical activity reduces the risk of depression and has positive benefits for mental health including reduced anxiety, enhanced mood and self-esteem. This is important for people with severe mental illness who may be at particular risk of physical ill health.
	However, decisions about the configuration of services are a local matter, in the context of national guidance, following Shifting the Balance of Power. Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for commissioning services for their populations and are accountable to their strategic health authority (StHA) for discharging this function effectively.
	With regard to more specialised services that, by their very nature, are provided from relatively few providers, PCTs will increasingly have collaborative commissioning arrangements with other PCTs. This will enable them to pool expertise and ensure sufficient dedicated capacity to develop effective health needs assessments, and plan and secure delivery of services.

Mental Health Services

Oliver Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2002, Official Report, column 468W, on mental health, what impact the work referred to has had on recruitment and retention of staff in mental health services.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 11 July 2002
	As yet, it is too early to say what impact this work will make. But, we will examine the effect of these initiatives in order to assess their impact.
	This work will build on the major recruitment we have already seen in mental health services. Between September 1997 and September 2001 there has been an increase of 1,670 whole time equivalent (wte) qualified psychiatric nursing staff, 420 wte psychiatrists, 2,030 wte occupational therapists, 1,040 wte clinical psychologists and 150 wte psychotherapists.

Care Homes

Desmond Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if he will make it his policy to allow new care homes to be commissioned before a full inspection takes place while there is a backlog of registrations and bed shortages; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  what the average waiting time is between a new care home seeking a registration for the purposes of the care home regulations and an inspection taking place;
	(3)  what priority is given to new establishments seeking first registration for the purpose of the care home regulations; and if he will make a statement;
	(4)  how many new establishments are awaiting a first registration for the purposes of the care home regulations; and if he will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 24 July 2002
	The National Care Standards Commission is currently processing three types of registration application; (i) applications made under the previous regulatory authority and transferred to the Commission as a part-processed application; (ii) applications made to the Commission since 1 April 2002; and (iii) applications from existing homes previously exempt from registration. The first two categories of application are treated as a priority.
	New care homes cannot operate legally unless and until they have completed the registration process to the satisfaction of the Commission, including the filing of appropriate documentation, reference checking, site visits and interviews to confirm the fitness of the home and its managers. The process can take three to four months and ensures the protection of vulnerable adults and children. A home will be inspected twice per year: once during an announced inspection and once during an unannounced inspection. There is no connection between the time a home completes the registration process and is inspectedthis will depend on individual area office inspection programmes.

Care Homes

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much correspondence his Department has received from (a) care home owners and (b) hon. Members with regard to delays in the vetting of care home staff applications by the Criminal Records Bureau.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 18 July 2002
	The Department received eight letters concerning delays by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) in processing applications for criminal records checks. Of these one was from a care home provider and seven were from hon. Members.
	Measures are being taken to overcome the early operating difficulties experienced by the CRB, which have led to delays in responding to applications for disclosures. We are determined that the CRB will be in a position as soon as possible to meet the high standards of service that it has made clear it will deliver to its customers. The short-term implications for particular service areas using the CRB service are being closely monitored.

Care Homes

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those care standards for care homes which take effect in each year from 2002.

Jacqui Smith: The national minimum standards for care homes apply from 1 April 2002, unless otherwise stated in any standard. Those standards which have not already come into force or will not apply to provision which existed before 1 April 2002 are as follows:
	Care homes for older people
	20.1: Will not apply to pre-existing provision until 1 April 2007
	21.5: Will not apply to pre-existing provision
	23.2: Will not apply to pre-existing provision
	23.3: Will not apply to pre-existing provision until 1 April 2007
	23.4: Will not apply to pre-existing provision until 1 April 2007
	23.10: Will not apply to pre-existing provision
	23.11: Will not apply to pre-existing provision until 1 April 2007
	25.3: Will not apply to pre-existing provision
	27.3: Will not fully apply to pre-existing provision before 1 April 2003, following statutory guidance issues by Ministers
	28.1: Applies from 2005
	31.2: Applies from 2005
	Care homes for younger adults (18-65)
	24.3: Will not apply to pre-existing provision until 1 April 2007
	24.11: Disability Discrimination Act Part 3 requirements do not apply until 1 April 2004
	25.3: Will not apply to pre-existing provision until 1 April 2007
	25.5.ii: Applies from 1 April 2004
	25.6: Will not apply to pre-existing provision
	25.8: Will not apply to pre-existing provision
	27.2: Applies from 1 April 2004
	27.4: Applies from 1 April 2004
	32.6: Applies from 2005
	32.7: Applies from 1 April 2005
	35.5: Does not apply fully until 2004
	37.2.ii: Applies from 2005
	37.2.iii: Applies from 2005
	Care homes for children
	24.6: Does not apply fully until 2003
	29.4: Applies from January 2004
	29.5: Applies from January 2005
	34.3: Does not apply fully until January 2005
	However, in the light of continuing concern about the possible impact of certain standards, we believe it is right to look again at those physical environment standards which are the most demanding in terms of changes to the fabric of the home.
	A consultation document was issued on 16 August. This covers national standards for care home for both older people and younger adults (18-65). The amendments proposed in the consultation document would change a number of standards so that pre-existing care homes will not be expected to meet higher standards than those they already meet or met on 1 April 2002.
	The standards proposed for amendment are as follows:
	Care homes for older people
	1.2: users' guide
	20.1/20.4: communal space
	21.3: assisted baths
	22.2: passenger lifts
	22.5: doorways
	23.3/23.4: single room floor space
	23.11: single rooms
	Care homes for younger adults
	1.2: users' guide
	24.2: living space
	24.9: wheelchair access
	25.3: single rooms
	25.5: shared bedrooms
	27.2/27.4: toilets  bathrooms
	28.2: shared space
	In addition, as part of the consultation, we will accept views on other standards that relate to environmental issues. In line with Government policy all national standards will be reviewed within three years of their introduction.

Care Costs

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what arrangements his Department has made to ensure that the cost of a state-funded placement does not exceed the total of the NHS registered nurse contribution and social services department personal care and hotel payment;
	(2)  how many additional nurses will be required to undertake the registered nursing contribution assessments of state-funded placements in care homes;
	(3)  what assessment his Department has made of the changes in fee levels paid by local authority social services departments on the rates paid under each of three bands for nursing contributions.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 22 July 2002
	None. Nurses working in the National Health Service will be responsible for carrying out assessments with their local authority partners. It is for all local health and social care economies to plan how they intend to manage this and the ongoing reviews of people's care.
	The Department has disseminated some key principles governing the practice of commissioning nursing care in care homes from April 2003. These are on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/jointunit and are designed to help smooth the transfer during the introduction of NHS funded nursing care. The Department is continuing to discuss with the provider organisations and with NHS and social services interests the extent to which these might be further refined. Ultimately, this will be a matter for local agreement according to the principles set out in Building Capacity and Partnership in Care, published in October 2001. The substantial additional resources that the Government has put in to social services has enabled local authorities to increase the fees that they pay for care in care homes, by as much as 10 per cent in some places.
	Local authorities continue to be responsible for the nursing care of residents that they support. From April 2003, funding responsibility for care from a registered nurse will transfer to the NHS.

Care Costs

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each year how much of the increase in personal social services funding over the spending periods (a) 1998 to 2002 and (b) 2002 to 2006 is accounted for by an increased allocation for intermediate care.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 22 July 2002
	The NHS Plan, July 2000, announced that the development of intermediate care services was to be a Government priority, supported by significant additional investment. Details of the additional funding for intermediate care were given in Health Service Circular 2001/001: Local Government Circular (2001) 01, Intermediate Care, published in January 2001.
	Decisions on funding for future years, covered by the Spending Review 2002, 200304 to 200506, are still being taken. Further details will be announced formally at the time of the local government settlement in the autumn.
	Councils can decide how much of the additional funds made available for personal social services in recent years through the standard spending assessment and relevant grants such as the promoting independence grant, carers grant and the building care capacity grant are used for intermediate care. When allocating resources to local councils we aim to leave it to councils to choose how best to allocate these resources taking account of local circumstances and priorities.
	Since 1997 we have increased the resources available to social services departments by on average 3 per cent. per annum in real terms; and we will be increasing the level of funding by on average 6 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years, 200304 to 200506.

Care Costs

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of state-funded residents falling into each of the three nursing contribution bands;
	(2)  what estimate he has made of the number of state-funded care home residents who will be eligible for a registered nurse contribution assessment from 1 April 2003;
	(3)  when assessments of state-funded residents for their entitlement to a nursing contribution (a) commenced and (b) will be completed.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 22 July 2002
	At 31 March 2001, there were 71,845 residents of independent nursing homes who were supported by local authorities. From 1 April 2003, a similar number will be jointly supported with National Health Service funding of their care from a registered nurse.
	Currently, those who fund their own care have been assessed and approximately 19 per cent. fell in the low band, 58 per cent. in the medium band and 22 per cent. in the high band of nursing needs. Preliminary information from a small survey of 355 residents conducted earlier this year indicates that the nursing needs of supported residents are not dissimilar to these.
	Detailed guidance was issued in September 2001 under cover of HSC 2001 17: LAC(2001)26. NHS nurses should have been involved in the assessments of everyone needing registered nursing care since 1 April 2002, including those who need care from a registered nurse in a care home. All health and social care communities should agree the priorities for ensuring that the remainder of assessments and, if appropriate, determinations, are completed. Primary care trusts should assign individuals provisionally to an appropriate band based on the social services care plan and any records of assessment. Trusts and councils will be aiming to have all assessments completed in time for implementation by April 2003.

Hospital Food

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 682W, on nutrition 
	(1) (a) how many and (b) which of the six key targets under the Better Hospital Food Programme by (i) region and (ii) health authority will have been fully delivered by the end of (A) December 2001, (B) February 2002 and (C) April 2002;
	(2) (a) how many and (b) which of the key targets under the Better Hospital Food Programme were fully delivered by the end of (i) March and (ii) June 2002 in each (A) region and (B) health authority.

David Lammy: holding answer 11 July 2002
	Details of the numbers of hospitals meeting the key targets of the Better Hospital Food initiative by June 2002 are shown in the table. Figures available for periods prior to June 2002 were based on forecast information from National Health Service trusts. No information about the position at the end of March 2002 was collected.
	The better hospital food programme, announced in the NHS Plan and launched in May 2001, is a long-term initiative aimed at improving the quality and availability of food in hospitals. It is backed by the provision of an extra #38.5 million.
	The NHS Plan made it clear that the variability in the quality of hospital food across the country is not acceptable. The standards set out in the better hospital food programme are designed to reflect changes in preferences and lifestyles over the past few years, provide patients with better access to meals/drinks and ensure that patients get the help they need through the housekeeper programme.
	The NHS has made a great deal of progress with the implementation of the better hospital food programme. Where progress has been made with introducing the programme, patients are already noticing and appreciating the difference. The current position means that each day nearly 100,000 patients can access catering services around the clock; some 55,000 now get two new snacks twice a day and some 60,000 enjoy the new dishes designed by leading chefs.
	However we are aware of a number of cases where sufficient progress has not been made, and we have set up teams to work directly with these hospitals to ensure that remedial action is taken.
	To assist in this #2.1 million has recently been allocated to a number of NHS trusts and primary care trusts to enable them to further develop house-keeper services and to accelerate the progress already made in improving the range and quality of food services available to patients.
	Our plans are for further and sustained improvements to the standard and range of hospital food which will in turn mean that clinical benefits of improved nutrition are also realised with consequential benefits for patients and the NHS as a whole.
	
		Acute HospitalsBetter Hospital Food Implementation update June 2002
		
			  All Acute Hospitals (360) NumberPer cent. London Region (54) NumberPer cent. Midlands Eastern Region (90) NumberPer cent. Northern (121) NumberPer cent. Southern (95) NumberPer cent. 
		
		
			 Ward Kitchen Services 256 71.5 38 70.4 65 72.2 85 70.2 68 71.6 
			 Snack Box Services 210 58.7 32 59.3 44 48.9 71 58.7 63 66.3 
			 Additional Snacks 183 51.1 31 57.4 37 41.1 59 48.8 56 58.9 
			 Main Meal Evening 280 78.2 46 85.2 70 77.8 96 79.3 68 71.6 
			 Leading Chef Dishes 142 40.0 21 38.9 22 24.4 52 43.0 47 49.5 
		
	
	The above table shows the number of hospitals meeting the key targets of the Better Hospital Food initiative by June 2002.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the EU Scientific Committee on medical products and medical devices is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: The mandate of the Scientific Committee on Medicinal Products and Medical Devices is to consider scientific and technical questions relating to Community legislation concerning medicines for human and veterinary use without prejudice to the specific responsibilities of the Committee for Proprietary Medical Products and the Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products in the context of the evaluation of medicines. The Committee also considers scientific and technical questions relating to Community legislation concerning medical materials and equipment.
	The Committee normally meets five times each year. In the last 12 months the Committee met on 1 October 2001, 18 January 2002 and 17 June 2002.
	The United Kingdom's representative on the Committee is David Williams, Senior Pro-Vice Chancellor at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital. The European Commission pays the travel expenses for the Committee representatives. The costs to UK public funds are therefore the accommodation costs for the delegate attending meetings. Such costs are not readily available and would incur disproportionate cost to identify.
	The Committee considers a wide range of scientific and technical issues relating to medicinal products and medical devices. Subjects raised at the last meeting of the Committee included discussion of an interim report on PVC in medical devices for infants and the effects of Xylitol and other Polyols on Caries development. Agendas for Committee meetings can be accessed on the European Commission's website. A summary of the Committee's discussions is posted to the European Commission's website after each meeting and further details and documents are available from the European Commission on request.

CJD

David Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the theoretical risk of human beings contracting new variant CJD as a result of eating sheep and goat meat (a) under current regulatory arrangements and (b) if intestine were added to the list of specified risk material.

Hazel Blears: I am advised by the Foods Standards Agency, that an agency sponsored risk assesment of the theoretical risk of eating sheep meat indicates that, if BSE were present in sheep, current precautionery measures could reduce the risk by very approximately one third. It is also estimated that the addition of intestines to the current list of specified risk material could double the impact of these measures. In June 2002 the Agency recommended to the European Commission that sheep intestine be added to the list of specified risk material as a precautionary measure against the theoretical risk of BSE in sheep. The issue will be considered by the European Scientific Steering Committee who classify sheep and goats together in terms of the potential risk from BSE.

MMR

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been (a) undertaken by his Department and (b) carried out by non departmental public bodies responsible to his Department in the past year on potential health hazards of the use of the MMR vaccine.

Hazel Blears: The Department has not undertaken any research itself, but has funded both the public health laboratory service (PHLS) and national institute for biological standards and control (NIBSC) to undertake research studies on safety issues of the combined, measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.
	NIBSC recently completed a study to compare the sensitivities of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods used in a number of international laboratories. This study was designed to compare the sensitivities of assays used by NIBSC and others in order to validate their abilities to detect measles ribonucleic acid (RNA) in the tissues of children with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and autism. This work has recently been submitted for publication.
	The Department has also provided further funding to extend this work. The new study will bring together a number of clinical units who are providing tissue samples from patients diagnosed with IBD and autistic spectrum diseases. These samples will be tested for measles RNA at NIBSC and will also be sent to different laboratories to compare the sensitivities of the methods used. The results from this study will be published as soon as they are completed.
	With Departmental funding, the PHLS have carried out a study that looked for evidence of associations between MMR vaccination, bowel problems and developmental regression in children with autism. They used a data linkage system, established by PHLS, which links clinical notes with independant computerised vaccination records in the former Thames regions. The results have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals (Taylor B, Miller E et al (2002) Measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study BMJ, 324 393-396). The research group has also looked at a number of other putative adverse events after MMR vaccine using this linkage system: gait disturbance, invasive bacterial infection, aseptic meningitis and purpura.

MMR

Julie Kirkbride: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if the MRC will conduct an epidemiological comparison survey one year after the vaccines were administered between (a) children who have had a single antigen vaccine or none at all and (b) with children who have had the MMR vaccine;
	(2)  If the MRC will commission a study of children whose parents claim they have been damaged by the MMR vaccine in an attempt to replicate the findings by Dr Wakefield.

Hazel Blears: The Medical Research Council (MRC) does not, as a rule, commission research but welcomes high quality applications for support in any scientific area which will further our understanding of autism and especially those areas which were highlighted in the recent MRC review of autism.
	Applications are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.
	All research on MMR is reviewed by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation, the Government's independent expert committee.

Statutory Instruments

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many statutory instruments have been (a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by his Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case.

David Lammy: Between 1 January 2002 and 23 September 2002, the Department introduced 361 statutory instruments. Eighty-one of these were amending statutory instruments.
	Information of the cost and saving of each statutory instrument is not collected centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, regulatory impact assessments, where produced, are available in the Library.

NHS Direct

Colin Challen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Morley and Rothwell constituency have used NHS Direct; and what the constituency average in England is.

Jacqui Smith: NHS Direct West Yorkshire covers 22 constituencies and has handled 488,000 calls since January 2001. During this period, NHS Direct West Yorkshire handled around four thousand calls from people in the Morley and Rothwell constituency.
	Throughout England, people living in 534 constituencies have access to NHS Direct services. Since January 2001, NHS Direct has handled over eight million calls from people living in England. The constituency average in England is around 15,000 calls per constituency.

Delayed Discharges

Patrick McLoughlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharges there were in (a) Derbyshire and (b) England in the last three months.

Jacqui Smith: Information from Quarter 4 of 200102 on the numbers of delayed discharges, at national and regional level shows that there were 38 delayed discharges in Derbysire, and 5,473 delayed discharges in England.

Learning Disabilities

Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients with learning disabilities will leave institutional care in the next three years who will require support in the community from London local authorities; and what additional resources have been identified as being required to meet this future demand.

Jacqui Smith: In the autumn 2001 position statement, all local authorities were asked to identify the number of patients with learning difficulties currently living in long stay National Health Service hospitals, and their forecast numbers up to 200304.
	In autumn 2001, there were 179 people identified in London councils living in NHS long stay hospitals. Forecasts show that 40 would leave institutional care in 200102, 45 in 200203 and 93 in 200304.
	Health authorities have been funded to care for the people with learning disabilities currently living in the old long stay hospitals. They are expected to work with local authorities in planning the transfer of residents and resources to support them to the community by a mutually agreed date. They should agree with the receiving local authority the care to be provided and any financial arrangements so that current and future responsibility for providing and meeting or contributing to the cost of that care is clear.
	One of the five priorities for the use of the revenue element of the learning disability development fund is completing the reprovision of the remaining long-stay hospitals to enable people to move to more appropriate accommodation by April 2004. Of the #20.589 million available in 200203, #5.029 million has been allocated to London authorities. It is for them to decide how much of this they wish to spend on enabling people to move out of the long stay hospitals.

Learning Disabilities

Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the projected numbers of individuals with learning disabilities requiring residential or living placements (a) for each London borough and (b) for London as a whole for the most recent three years for which figures are available.

Jacqui Smith: Information on projected numbers of people with learning difficulties requiring, or likely to require, residential or other forms of accommodation are not currently collected by the Department.
	The Government's strategy for improving services for people with learning disabilities and their families is set out in the white paper Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disabilities for the 21st Century (Cm 6086) which was published in March 2001. Key to the implementation of the changes outlined in the white paper are learning disability partnership boards which are now established in each local authority area and which include social services departments.
	The partnership boards are currently required to complete a housing strategy by the winter of 200203. Advice issued to partnership boards suggests that their planning should include projections of future demand, which should entail assessing current and past demand as part of their future projections.

Disabled People

Jimmy Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent meetings he has had with voluntary organisations that give assistance to disabled people to discuss improving services for the disabled.

Jacqui Smith: I take the Department's Ministerial lead on disability and I have recently met with:
	Leonard Cheshire, a charity provider of services for disabled people, on 4 February
	The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy on 11 February
	The Voluntary Organisations Disability Group (VODG) on 21 March
	SENSE, a voluntary organisation working for deafblind people and their families, on 15 April
	Additionally, my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met with EmPOWER on 18 June to discuss their wheelchair initiative and he also spoke at their conference on 22 April.
	My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has met recently with Bert Massie, Chairman of the Disability Rights Commission, on 26 June. He also met with the British Lung Foundation and the British Thoracic Society on 5 March to discuss respiratory disease, which includes severe disabling lung disease.

Nurses

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) foreign nurses have been employed and (b) British nurses have refused employment in each health authority in the last year for which figures are available.

John Hutton: The information requested is not held centrally.

Food Standards Agency

John Gummer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether verbal summaries of the submissions were given to the sub-group on salt of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Food Standards Agency.

Hazel Blears: Subgroup members received copies of all the submissions. The subgroup secretariat provided a verbal summary, by way of introduction, as each submission came up for discussion by the subgroup.

Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

Ian Gibson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what measures he is taking to ensure public engagement in the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation;
	(2)  if he will publish the agendas of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in advance;
	(3)  what plans he has to hold Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation meetings in public;
	(4)  if he will list the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation sub-committees and their members;
	(5)  what plans he has to reform the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation; and if he will make a statement;
	(6)  what discussions he has had with (a) Patient groups, (b) healthcare professionals, (c) public health consultants and (d) the pharmaceutical industry on the reform of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation;
	(7)  what plans he has for public consultation on the process and composition of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

Hazel Blears: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation have recently launched a website (www.doh.gov/jcvi/index.htm) where a list of members, together with their declarations of interest are published.
	The Government has no plans to reform the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation but I have asked that the Committee consider publishing the agendas of meetings on the website in advance and also consider having meetings open to the public.
	I have just confirmed that a lay member be appointed to the Committee and an announcement about the appointment will be made shortly. The appointment was made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Guidelines on appointments to public bodies.

Dyslexia

Jonathan R Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has undertaken on the causes of (a) ADHD and (b) dyslexia.

Jacqui Smith: The Department's policy research programme has not commissioned any research on dyslexia and hyperactivity. However the National Health Service research and development programme, under the direction of Sir John Pattison, has commissioned two studies which are now complete; The effects of dietary supplementation with polyunsaturated fatty acids in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder Professor Harry Zietlin), Eastern Regional Office, July 2000, and Visual, auditory and biochemical function in neuro-developmental disorders: dyslexia, AD/HD and related schizophrenic disorders (Dr. A Richardson), London Regional Office, December 1999.

Dyslexia

Jonathan R Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department defines dyslexia as (a) a medical and (b) an educational/learning disorder.

Jacqui Smith: The World Health Organisation ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders in children and adolescents lists developmental dyslexia under the heading 'specific reading disorder' and is further classified under 'specific disorders of psychological development' and not under 'medical conditions'. We do not regard dyslexia as a medical condition but a specific disorder of psychological development.
	Learning difficulties such as dyslexia fall within the scope of the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, published by the Department for Education and Skills in November 2001.

Dyslexia

Jonathan R Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Department is taking to treat diagnosed (a) children and (b) adults with (i) ADHD and (ii) dyslexia.

Jacqui Smith: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is mainly a condition of childhood which can continue into later life. The assessment and treatment of ADHD is usually undertaken by child psychiatrists often with the help and contribution of other members of multidisciplinary child mental health services. However, it is becoming increasingly common for paediatricians to diagnose and manage ADHD. It is recommended that interventions should be focused on the behaviour of the child; family interactions, classroom problems and learning difficulties should also be offered. Even children diagnosed as having hyperkinetic disorder, which is the more severe and specific end of the spectrum, where the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has recommended the use of methylphenidate, a treatment programme should not usually rely on medication alone.
	Learning difficulties such as dyslexia fall within the scope of the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, published by the Department for Education and Skills in November 2001.

Dyslexia

Jonathan R Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed with (a) ADHD and (b) dyslexia.

Jacqui Smith: Information is not collected in the form requested. However a survey of the mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain by the Office of National Statistics for the Department of Health, published in 2000, found the prevalence of hyperkinetic disorders which includes attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as being 1.5 per cent. of children in England aged 10-15.
	It also examined the prevalence of specific learning difficulties in children with a mental disorder and vice versa. The survey defined specific learning difficulty as the failure to achieve academic progress in reading (therefore including dyslexia) and spelling despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence and sociocultural opportunity.
	Children with a mental disorder were found three times more likely than those with no disorder to have a specific learning difficulty: 12 per cent. compared with 4 per cent. However there was little difference in the proportions of children with specific learning difficulty by type of disorder for example emotional disorder, conduct disorder, ADHD and less common disorders.

Devolution

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the EU Advisory Committee on cancer prevention is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on Thursday 19 September 2002, Official Report, vol. 390, col. 361-62W.

Devolution

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the EU Committee on the action programme on rare diseases in the framework of the action plan for public health is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: The next meeting of the EU Committee for the Community Action Programme on Rare Diseases is expected to take place in the autumn of 2002. The Department has lead responsibility for representing the United Kingdom at meetings of this Committee. It consults the Devolved Administrations to ensure that points made represent all parts of the United Kingdom, including the Scottish Executive.

Devolution

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the EU Pharmaceutical Committee is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement.

David Lammy: The Pharmaceutical Committee usually meets in plenary at least twice a year and is next due to meet on 13 November 2002. An ad hoc XInformation to Patients stakeholders meeting took place on 24 September 2002 and a special meeting of the Pharmaceutical Committee was convened for 2 October to discuss the derogation clauses for parallel imports in the future Accession Treaties. The United Kingdom is represented jointly on the European Pharmaceutical Committee by two senior public health officials from the Medicines Control Agency and from the Department. Medicines control, with the exception of responsibility for enforcement of the Medicines Act 1968 and related legislation, has not been devolved. The UK members of the Pharmaceutical Committee represent UK-wide interests on the Committee and work in co-operation with the Scottish Executive and other Devolved Administrations as required.

European Cities Against Drugs

Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason no city in Scotland was nominated for membership of European Cities Against Drugs.

Hazel Blears: Neither the United Kingdom Government nor the Scottish Executive is linked to the European cities against drugs movement, and no UK cities have been nominated for membership. The Government believes that there is a place for appropriate harm minimisation measures, in particular to reduce the rising number of drug-related deaths, as part of the overall national drugs strategy. Harm minimisation measures are opposed by the European cities against drugs movement.

Area-based Initiatives

Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each area-based initiative for which his Department is responsible the amount originally budgeted for in (a) 200001 and (b) 200102, stating in each year what funds budgeted for were not spent and if they were carried forward.

Hazel Blears: The Health Action Zone (HAZ) initiative is the only Department sponsored area based initiative.
	In 200001 the funding allocated to HAZs amounted to #120 million. Added to this was #30 million carried forward from 199902 making a total of #150 million available to the HAZs. This sum was underspent by #3.3 million which was carried forward into 2001-02.
	In 2001-02 the funding allocated to HAZs amounted to #61 million. Added to this was #3.3 million carried forward from 200001, making a total #64.3 million available to the HAZs. This sum was underspent by #134,000 which was carried forward into 200203.

Hearing Aids

Tim Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes are taking place in audiology services to support the introduction of digital hearing aids.

Jacqui Smith: The modernising hearing aid services project is introducing not just digital hearing aids but modern and improved service provision.
	In addition to the 20 pilot sites involved in the project an additional 30 new sites are joining the project this financial year. The project management team works with each site to prepare it for the move to a modernised service.
	Sites must have the appropriate infrastructure, information technology equipment and trained staff, before they can fit digital hearing aids. Digital hearing aids require different service delivery models because they incorporate information technology based assessment and fitting procedures.

Know-How Campaign

Cheryl Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to extend the Sun Know-How campaign.

Hazel Blears: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend for Walsall South (Mr. Bruce George) on Tuesday 16 July 2002, Official Report, vol. 389, col. 210W.

Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authorities

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence was per 1,000 population of (a) under-16 pregnancies, (b) 16 to 18 years old pregnancies, (c) under 16s having abortions and (d) 16 to 18 years olds have abortions in (i) the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority, (ii) Hampshire and (iii) the South East in each year since 1996; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: Data on teenage pregnancy is usually presented as rates for under 16 year olds and under 18 year olds. These are also the ages to which targets in the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy relate. The data for these age ranges, and for the areas and years requested, are shown in the tables. Figures for 2001 will not be available until February 2003. The data have been provided by the Office for National Statistics.
	
		Under 16 conceptions and abortions: rate per 1,000 women aged 1315 by area of usual residence1, 19962000
		
			  Conceptions 199619971998199920012 Abortions 199619971998199920002 
		
		
			 South East GOR 7.2 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.8 
			 Hampshire County 5.9 6.2 6.1 5.7 5.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.0 
			 Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire 9.2 8.4 8.3 7.7 7.8 4.8 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.4 
		
	
	
		Under 18 conceptions and abortions: -- rate per 1,000 women aged 1517 by area of usual residence1, 19962000
		
			  Conceptions199619971998199920002 Abortions199619971998199920002 
		
		
			 South East GOR 36.5 36.6 37.8 35.8 35.7 16.2 15.9 16.8 16.3 16.9 
			 Hampshire County 33.0 35.2 35.7 33.2 30.7 15.6 15.9 15.0 15.8 14.7 
			 Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire 49.0 45.8 47.6 45.6 40.8 19.9 18.9 19.1 17.5 18.7 
		
	
	1 Boundaries as at 1 April 2001.
	2 Figures for 2000 are provisional.
	3 All figures relate to boundaries at 1 April 2001. Based on these boundaries, Hampshire County excludes Isle of Wight Unitary Authority (formed in 1995), Portsmouth Unitary Authority (formed in 1997) and Southampton Unitary Authority (formed in 1997). Hampshire County therefore comprises the following local authorities: Basingstoke and Deane, East Hampshire, Eastleigh, Gosport, Hart, Havant, New Forest, Rushmoor, Test Valley and Winchester.
	A comprehensive, cross-Goverment teenage pregnancy strategy was launched by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister in 1999. This sets a target to halve the under 18 conception rate by 2010 and aims to increase the participation of teenage parents in education and training to reduce their long term risk of social exclusion. Early signs of the strategy's impact are encouraging with figures for 2000 showing a 6 per cent. reduction from 1998 in both under 18 and under 16 conception rates.
	The reduction in the under 18 conception rate for the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire area exceeds the national figure with a decline from 1998 of 14 per cent.

Teenage Pregnancy

Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the advice given by general practitioners to pregnant under-16s; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: The Government's teenage pregnancy strategy recognises the importance of helping young people resist pressure to have early sex while seeking to ensure that those who are sexually active have easy access to high quality advice on contraception, sexual health and pregnancy. General practitioners (GPs) have a key role to play in providing this advice.
	Best Practice Guidance on the Provision of Effective Contraception and Advice Services was issued in 2000, setting out the criteria against which services should be commissioned and provided. All GPs are expected to work to the principles of the guidance. These are that services should encourage early uptake of pregnancy testing, provide non-judgmental advice, referral to antenatal care when appropriate or, where abortion is the agreed option, quick referral to National Health Service abortion services.
	GPs who hold a conscientious objection to abortion should make their views known to the patient and enable them to see another doctor without delay, if that is their wish. However, even a GP who conscentiously objects should still give advice to patients and perform the preparatory steps to arrange an abortion, where the request meets the legal requirements.
	The legal framework for young people under 16 to consent to treatment, including abortion, was set out in the House of Lords ruling in 1985 in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority and the Department of Health and Social Security.
	A young person under 16 can consent treatment without parental involvement providing the health professional is satisfied that they are competent to understand fully the implications of any treatment and to make a choice of the treatment proposed.The health professional must establish that a number of different criteria are met, including that the young person cannot be persuaded to tell their parents, or to allow the doctor to do so; they are very likely to begin or continue having intercourse with or without contraceptive treatment; and that the young person's best interests require the health professional to give contraceptive advice, treatment or both without parental consent.

Second Opinion Appointed Doctors

Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish (a) the criteria for the appointment of doctors as second opinion appointed doctors under the Mental Health Act 1983 and (b) the appointment procedure for these positions.

Jacqui Smith: In order to be eligible for appointment to the second opinion appointed doctor's panel, doctors must meet the following criteria:
	General Medical Council registered
	Member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists or equivalent qualification recognised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists
	Registered on the Royal College of Psychiatrists Continuing Professional Development Programme
	Consultant status in psychiatry for at least five years
	Evidence of mental health practice in the last two years
	Two good references from practising consultant psychiatrists who have worked with the applicant within the last two years
	Availability to work at a minimum of 10 different locations
	Currently practising
	Age limit-below 65 years
	The procedure for appointment is summarised as follows: interested doctors are asked to submit an application, curriculum vitae and two references, which are scrutinised by a panel comprising three persons, usually Commissioners, at least one being a consultant psychiatrist.
	This panel makes draft proposals on appointments, which are referred to the Commission's executive management team and then the board for consideration and final ratification.

Special Advisers

Andrew Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the (a) dates, (b) locations and (c) sources were of attributable (i) articles, interviews or contributions for the media, books or other journals and (ii) speeches or presentations made in the public domain, by departmental special advisers since March 2001; who in his Department authorised the activity; and on what date this activity was recorded with the departmental Head of Information.

David Lammy: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister on Wednesday 24 July 2002, Official Report, vol. 389, col. 1373W.

National Care Standards Commission

Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the members are of the National Care Standards Commission; and what recent statements they have made about the quality of services regulated under Part II of the Care Standards Act.

Jacqui Smith: The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) became fully operational and took up its regulatory responsibilities on 1 April 2002.
	The Chair of the NCSC Board, Ms Anne Parker OBE, was formerly chair of the Carers National Association. In addition, there are a further 14 non-executive board members. These are:
	Ms Roslyn Emblin
	Mr. Michael Hake
	Mr. Bryan Heiser
	Baroness Valerie Howarth, OBE
	Mr. Simon Kirk
	Professor Jim Mansell
	Mr. Derek Mead
	Mr. Shaukat Moledina
	Professor Howard Parker
	Ms Susan Sayer, OBE
	Ms Lucianne Sawyer
	Professor John Spiers
	Mr. Glynn Vernon
	Mr. Peter Westland, CBE
	Further information about the board members, including a register of their interests, is available on the Commission's website.
	I am unaware of any specific statements made recently by any board member regarding the quality of services regulated under Part II of the Care Standards Act 2000.

Minimum Wage

Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of employees working within the NHS earn (a) the development rate national minimum wage for workers aged 18 to 21 inclusive, (b) the national minimum wage for workers aged 22 and over, (c) between the national minimum wage and #4.50 per hour, (d) between #4.50 and #4.80 per hour, (e) between #4.80 and #5 per hour and (f) less than #5 per hour; and if he will make a statement.

John Hutton: The information requested is shown in the table.
	The Government are committed to tackling low pay in the National Health Servicethis year extra resources were targeted to give proportionally more pay to the lowest paid NHS staff, giving a new minimum hourly rate in the NHS of #4.47 from April 2002 for staff on national conditions of service.
	
		
			   Rates at August 2000 Estimated rates at April 20021  
			   All staff Staff on national payscales Staff on national payscales2  
			 Age group Hourly salary3 Headcount ('000) as % of all staff Headcount ('000) as % of all staff Headcount ('000) as % of all staff 
		
		
			 18 to 21 =#3.50 * 0 * 0 0 0 
			 22 or over =#4.10 12 1 6 1 0 0 
			 22 or over #4.10 to #4.50 53 6 29 4 3 1 
			 22 or over #4.50 to #4.80 33 3 17 3 29 5 
			 22 or over #4.80 to #5.00 29 3 14 2 10 1 
			 22 or over #5.00 128 13 66 10 42 7 
		
	
	Notes:
	1 Figures reflect pay awards up to and including April 2002.
	2 Estimates of pay awards for staff on local payscales are not available.
	3 Hourly earnings are, on average, 28 per cent. higher than with allowances and overtime added.
	* Indicates greater than zero and less than 500.
	Source: 
	Department of Health's August 2002 Survey of NHS Staff Earnings.

Children's Food

Debra Shipley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress the Food Standard Agency has made in drawing up a code of practice on the marketing of foods to and for children.

Hazel Blears: The Food Standards Agency has met with consumers, enforcement authorities, public interest groups and industry on a number of occasions to try to establish consensus on elements of best practice that would facilitate development of guidance on the promotion of foods to children. However, the Agency has decided to carry out some further research before taking the discussions further.
	The Agency has already published, in November 2001, the results of an independent study into parents' and children's attitudes to promotional activity. The next step, this autumn, will be to commission an extensive review of research into the effects of promotional activity on the eating behaviour of children. The Agency expects to publish the results of this review next year and will then restart discussions with stakeholders.

Alternative Medicine

David Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent initiatives he has taken to make wider use of complementary and alternative medicines and treatments and practitioners in the Health Service.

Hazel Blears: The Department is committed to a National Health Service which is run by its front-line professionals. Decisions on provision of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) will therefore be made by local NHS staff, taking into account the needs of patients, the evidence base, and the effectiveness of regulation of those who provide CAM.
	We are co-funding a two-year collaborative project led by Westminster University to identify and develop good practice in the clinical governance of CAM within primary care. The project is being carried out in partnership with the Prince of Wales' Foundation for Integrated Health, which is running a parallel project to identify good practice in the use of CAM in a range of primary care trusts.
	To help improve the evidence base we have included CAM in our programme to strengthen research capacity, and bids from academic institutions to host research in this field are currently being considered. We also recently issued a call for research proposals on the role of CAM in the care of cancer patients.

Musgrove Park Hospital

Adrian Flook: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of improvements in service at Musgrove Park hospital, Taunton since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: Since 1997, Government initiatives to improve the performance of the National Health Service have resulted in significant developments in the quality of services provided to local people by Taunton  Somerset NHS Trust, which has responsibility for Taunton  Somerset Hospital, Musgrove Park. In 1997, 88 per cent. of inpatients were seen within 10 months, that has since increased to 92 per cent., in 199798 the number of patients seen and treated was 63,000 and in 200102 that increased to 73,000. There are now no outpatients waiting longer than 26 weeks for a first appointment. We have also recently announced an allocation of #2.3 million to further reduce waiting times. By March 2003 there will be no patients waiting in excess of nine months for inpatient treatment and 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment.
	In addition since 1997 new services have been introduced bringing considerable benefits for patients. These include a breast care unit, an admissions unit, a magnetic resonance imaging scanner. Capital investment schemes in 200102 include a new cardiac catherisation laboratory, a third ophthalmic theatre, and an orthopaedic theatre and ward.

NHS IT Procurement

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the OJEC advertisements were placed for the south-west regional procurement process for NHS IT.

Hazel Blears: The advertisement for the south-west regional information technology procurement was placed in February 2000.

NHS IT Procurement

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the south-west regional procurement process for NHS IT was initiated.

Hazel Blears: The formal initiation of the south-west procurement project took place in December 1999.

NHS IT Procurement

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent evaluation has been made of the single procurement process for electronic patient record systems for NHS trusts in the south-west; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: In early 2002 a review of the south-west project was carried out by a team from the National Health Service information authority. The review used the approach recommended by the Office of Government Commerce in its gateway review process.

NHS IT Procurement

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts in the south-west have signed contracts with a minimum value of #1 million for hospital-wide electronic patient record systems through the south-west regional procurement process for NHS IT; and how many contracts of this minimum value are expected to be signed in the next three months.

Hazel Blears: No trust involved in the south-west regional procurement has yet signed a contract for hospital-wide electronic patients' record systems. It is expected that the two consortia in the regional procurement process will award contracts by March 2003. At this point, over 20 trusts will sign contracts in excess of #1 million.

NHS IT Procurement

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of financial savings that have been achieved since the commencement of the single procurement process for NHS IT in the south-west; and what his next estimate is of future savings for the currrent and five financial years.

Hazel Blears: The south-west project estimates that the savings gained through the shared procurement process will be excess of #1 million. At this stage it is too early to estimate the savings in the resulting contracts, but it is anticipated that these savings will be significant.

Genetically Modified DNA

Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the research findings published by the Food Standards Agency on the transfer of GM DNA from food to bacteria in the human gut, (a) what level of GM DNA was present in the commercial samples fed to participants in the research, (b) what proportion of the GM DNA was complete rather than in fragments, (c) to what extent the research looked at whether GM DNA passed through the gut and into the blood stream and blood cells, (d) what reference was made to the experiment on mice, post 1997, documenting the ability of GM DNA to pass through the gut wall into the bloodstream, the liver and spleen and (e) which scientific experts concluded from this research that humans were not at risk.

Hazel Blears: 3x1012 copies of the transgene were present in the 454g commercial sample fed to the participants. Survival of the genetically modified (GM) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was variable. 4.2x107 and 2.7x108 copies of the full-length fragment was detected in the digesta from two of the seven ileostomy patients. Nevertheless, intact DNA was not shown to be transferred to intestinal tract bacteria. The aim of the research, which has been peer reviewed, was to study the fate of ingested DNA in the gastrointestinal tract. Transfer of GM DNA into the bloodstream did not fall within the scope of the project. Scientists carrying out the work have drawn their own independent conclusions on the results. The broad implications of the studies on gene transfer will be discussed at an open meeting of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes in November.

Biotechnology Research Projects

Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what biotechnology research projects in (a) agriculture and (b) biomedics have been supported by the Department; and what level of public investment has gone into them in each of the last three years.

Hazel Blears: The Department has no responsibility for agriculture. The main Government agency for biotechnology research is the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and the main Government agency for biomedical research is the Medical Research Council. Both are funded by the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology, and information about their work can be seen at their websites, which are www.bbsrc.ac.uk and www.mrc.ac.uk respectively.

NHS Plan (Newcastle)

Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2002, Official Report, column 262W, on the NHS Plan (Newcastle), what requests were received from each source for intermediate care funding in the Northern and Yorkshire Region; how much they were for; which were (a) approved and (b) rejected; and what share of the national allocation was granted to the Northern and Yorkshire Region.

Jacqui Smith: holding Answer 15 May 2002
	The Northern and Yorkshire Region received 27 bids for intermediate care capital funding. The following schemes were successful in the first phase:
	Leeds Health Authority
	Selby and York Primary Care Trust
	Darlington Primary Care Trust
	North Durham Health Care National Health Service Trust
	Carlisle and District Primary Care Trust
	Gateshead Primary Care Trust
	Hartlepool Primary Care Trust
	Sunderland Teaching Primary Care Trust
	North Tyneside Primary Care Trust
	Middlesbrough and Eston Primary Care Trust
	Wakefield West Primary Care Trust
	The following schemes were unsuccessful in the first phase:
	Airedale Primary Care Trust
	Bradford City Primary Care Trust
	North Bradford Primary Care Trust
	Calderdale Primary Care Trust (2 bids)
	Eastern Hull Primary Care Trust (2 bids)
	Eastern Wakefield Primary Care Trust
	Harrogate area
	Huddersfield Central Primary Care Trust (2 bids)
	Newcastle Integrated Older People Service
	Newcastle Social Services
	North Tees Primary Care Trust
	South Tyneside Primary Care Trust
	Scarborough area
	I announced the allocation of the first phase of #46 million to 80 projects on 6 March 2002. To date a total of #58 million has been allocated to intermediate care capital to 90 projects. Of the #58 million allocated, the Northern and Yorkshire Region received #7.75 million, which is 13.4 per cent. of the total amount. It may be possible to fund further bids from the Northern and Yorkshire region as part of a further phase of funding yet to be allocated.

Occupational Therapists

Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire of 9 May 2002, Official Report, column 346W, how many occupational therapists were in post in each health authority at March 2001 per head of population.

John Hutton: holding answer 16 May 2002
	Between 1997 and 2001 the number of occupational therapists employed in the National Health Service increased by 2,390 or 20 per cent. Further increases in the NHS Plan period and beyond will help to improve the ratio of occupational therapists per head of population. Our latest projections, based on numbers expected to come out of training, and trends in retirements, occupational therapists working outside the NHS and other factors remaining broadly the same, suggest that there will be over 21,000 occupational therapists working in the NHS by 2009.
	Workforce information is collected annually as at 30 September. The number of occupational therapists per head of population by health authority as at 30 September 2001 is shown in the table.
	
		Qualified scientific, therapeutic  technical staff employed in the occupational therapy area of work per head of population by strategic health authority area as at 30 September 2001
		
			   whole-time equivalents per head of population 
		
		
			  England 11,820 0.0002 
			 Q01 Norfolk, Suffolk  Cambridgeshire 530 0.0002 
			 Q02 Bedfordshire  Hertfordshire 250 0.0002 
			 Q03 Essex 400 0.0002 
			 Q04 North West London 430 0.0002 
			 Q05 North Central London 380 0.0003 
			 Q06 North East London 350 0.0002 
			 Q07 South East London 310 0.0002 
			 Q08 South West London 320 0.0002 
			 Q09 Northumberland, Tyne  Wear 330 0.0002 
			 Q10 County Durham  Tees Valley 230 0.0002 
			 Q11 North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire 310 0.0002 
			 Q12 West Yorkshire 600 0.0003 
			 Q13 Cumbria  Lancashire 450 0.0002 
			 Q14 Greater Manchester 670 0.0003 
			 Q15 Cheshire  Merseyside 510 0.0002 
			 Q16 Thames Valley 470 0.0002 
			 Q17 Hampshire  Isle of Wight 340 0.0002 
			 Q18 Kent  Medway 320 0.0002 
			 Q19 Surrey  Sussex 660 0.0003 
			 Q20 Avon, Gloucestershire  Wiltshire 580 0.0003 
			 Q21 South West Peninsula 430 0.0003 
			 Q22 Dorset  Somerset 350 0.0003 
			 Q23 South Yorkshire 390 0.0003 
			 Q24 Trent 720 0.0003 
			 Q25 Leicestershire, Northamptonshire  Rutland 350 0.0002 
			 Q26 Shropshire  Staffordshire 340 0.0002 
			 Q27 Birmingham  The Black Country 490 0.0002 
			 Q28 Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire  Worcestershire 320 0.0002 
		
	
	Notes:
	Staff in post figures are rounded to the nearest ten.
	Population rates are rounded to one significant figure.
	Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.
	Source:
	Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.
	Data collected as at 30 September 2001 from NHS organisations has been aggregated to strategic health authority area.

Law Enforcement Agencies

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities designated with legislation there are within the responsibility of his Department; and what complaints procedure is available for each.

David Lammy: holding answer 16 May 2002
	There are no prosecuting authorities nor law enforcement agencies designated by law for which the Secretary of State for Health is responsible.
	The Solicitor's Office, Department of Health, prosecutes cases investigated by the directorate of counter fraud services, and its National Health Service equivalent the NHS counter fraud services, the medicines control agency and the medical devices agency. The investigators and prosecutors all derive their powers to act for and on behalf of the Secretary of State who is granted general functions by means of statutory powers.
	Consequently the investigators and prosecutors are not separately designated by law because they derive their powers from legislation and functions granted to the Secretary of State.

Mobile Telephone Masts

Mark Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect on medical devices of the presence nearby of mobile phone masts.

Hazel Blears: holding answer 24 June 2002
	The Medical Devices Agency have not received any reports of telecommunications masts or base stations (similar to masts but located on building rooftops) causing interference to medical devices. We have undertaken work to assess the possible risk from these installations, the most recent being last March where in collaboration with a National Health Service trust and British Telecom measurements were taken on a proposed rooftop installation for the current cellular network. The results indicated that the field strength had dropped to virtually undetectable levels at distances greater than 25 metres from the antenna and that the risk to medical devices being used in adjacent buildings was negligible.
	Previous measurement results obtained in other hospitals are listed in the Device Bulletin DB9702, March 1997.

Community Equipment Service

Tim Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with establishing the community equipment service and its financing.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 27 June 2002
	There are many long-established community equipment services in England run by councils and National Health Service trusts. The initiative to integate these services at a local level by 2004 and to increase the number of people benfiting from them by 50 per cent. by the same date is progressing. Additional funding to enable equipment services meet the NHS Plan targets has been made available to the NHS and to social services through their baseline allocations between the years 200102 and 200304. This work is supported by the national integrating community equipment services team, the members of which work with local itegratration lead officers and who are a source of good practice guidance.

NHS Maternity Units

David Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list NHS maternity units in descending order of (a) the ratio of midwives in post to the total number of births and (b) the ratio of the full complement of midwives to the total number of births in 2001.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 5 July 2002
	The figures are shown in the table in descending order and they represent for each trust the ratio of midwives in post and complement in September 2000 to deliveries in 2000-01 in that trust. Women who are cared for during pregnancy by midwives from one trust may later give birth in a unit in another trust. Relevant information is only available by trusts rather than units.
	
		NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): In descending ordermidwifery staff to deliveries ratios by NHS Trust as at 30 September 2000
		
			   Establishment midwifery figures: deliveries ratio1Whole-time equivalents Headcount2 Staff in post midwives: deliveries ratioWhole-time equivalents Headcount 
		
		
			 England  0.033 0.042 0.032 0.041 
			 RJ8 Cornwall Healthcare NHS Trust 0.352 0.450 0.352 0.450 
			 RJU Chorley  South Ribble NHS Trust 0.162 0.173 0.162 0.173 
			 RHS Southampton Community Health Services NHS Trust 0.111 0.148 0.111 0.148 
			 RH7 Severn NHS Trust 0.105 0.140 0.105 0.140 
			 REA Exeter  District Community Health Services NHS Trust 0.097 0.128 0.097 0.128 
			 RLF North Lakeland Healthcare NHS Trust 0.097 0.143 0.097 0.143 
			 RDZ Royal Bournemouth  Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust 0.062 0.073 0.062 0.073 
			 RM3 Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust 0.055 0.065 0.053 0.063 
			 RCC Scarborough  Ne Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust 0.054 0.061 0.054 0.061 
			 RVY Southport  Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust 0.052 0.076 0.052 0.076 
			 RMR Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust 0.051 0.061 0.051 0.061 
			 RQW The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust 0.049 0.060 0.045 0.056 
			 RBL Wirral Hospital NHS Trust 0.048 0.059 0.046 0.057 
			 RBU Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust 0.048 0.058 0.048 0.058 
			 RLW City Hospital NHS Trust 0.045 0.050 0.044 0.049 
			 RE9 South Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust 0.045 0.052 0.045 0.052 
			 RMP Tameside  Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust 0.045 0.056 0.045 0.056 
			 REZ Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust 0.044 0.051 0.044 0.051 
			 RWJ Stockport NHS Trust 0.044 0.051 0.044 0.051 
			 RMC Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust 0.044 0.051 0.044 0.051 
			 RA9 South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust 0.044 0.055 0.043 0.054 
			 RMK North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust 0.043 0.049 0.039 0.045 
			 RVJ North Bristol NHS Trust 0.043 0.059 0.042 0.057 
			 RH8 Royal Devon  Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust 0.043 0.057 0.043 0.057 
			 RFF Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust 0.043 0.048 0.043 0.048 
			 REM Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust 0.042 0.053 0.042 0.053 
			 RDL Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust 0.042 0.052 0.042 0.052 
			 RBZ Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust 0.042 0.052 0.038 0.048 
			 RWD United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust 0.041 0.056 0.041 0.055 
			 REU Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust 0.041 0.048 0.041 0.048 
			 RMB Blackburn, Hyndburn  Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust 0.041 0.049 0.041 0.049 
			 RM4 Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust 0.041 0.049 0.041 0.049 
			 RR4 Pinderfields  Pontefract Hospitals NHS Trust 0.041 0.051 0.041 0.051 
			 RJD Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust 0.041 0.048 0.041 0.048 
			 RBA Taunton  Somerset NHS Trust 0.040 0.046 0.040 0.046 
			 RVR Epsom  St Helier NHS Trust 0.040 0.055 0.038 0.053 
			 RTD The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust 0.040 0.048 0.040 0.047 
			 RDM Hastings  Rother NHS Trust 0.040 0.050 0.039 0.049 
			 RK9 Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust 0.040 0.050 0.040 0.050 
			 RWP Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 0.040 0.051 0.040 0.051 
			 RR2 Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust 0.039 0.059 0.039 0.059 
			 RJN East Cheshire NHS Trust 0.039 0.053 0.039 0.053 
			 RWH East  North Hertfordshire NHS Trust 0.039 0.049 0.033 0.043 
			 RA4 East Somerset NHS Trust 0.039 0.051 0.039 0.051 
			 RN7 Dartford  Gravesham NHS Trust 0.039 0.054 0.037 0.052 
			 RE7 West Cumbria Healthcare NHS Trust 0.038 0.052 0.036 0.050 
			 RCF Airedale NHS Trust 0.038 0.045 0.038 0.045 
			 RCJ South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 0.038 0.045 0.037 0.044 
			 RJE North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust 0.038 0.047 0.038 0.047 
			 RLU Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust 0.038 0.049 0.036 0.047 
			 RCV Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust 0.038 0.048 0.038 0.048 
			 RBN St Helens  Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust 0.038 0.045 0.038 0.045 
			 RTG Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 0.038 0.044 0.038 0.044 
			 RAG Doncaster Royal Informary  Montagu Hospital NHS Trust 0.037 0.048 0.037 0.048 
			 RMN Bury Health Care NHS Trust 0.037 0.046 0.037 0.046 
			 RWF Maidstone  Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust 0.037 0.050 0.032 0.045 
			 RLQ Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust 0.037 0.047 0.037 0.047 
			 RJY Wigan  Leigh Health Services NHS Trust 0.037 0.043 0.037 0.043 
			 RKB University Hospitals Coventry  Warwickshire NHS Trust 0.037 0.048 0.034 0.045 
			 RR7 Gateshead Health NHS Trust 0.037 0.045 0.037 0.045 
			 RWA Hull  East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trusts 0.037 0.046 0.037 0.046 
			 RZ Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust 0.037 0.048 0.035 0.047 
			 RJR Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust 0.036 0.047 0.036 0.047 
			 RJZ King's College Hospital NHS Trust 0.036 0.042 0.035 0.040 
			 RR9 North Durham Health Care NHS Trust 0.036 0.043 0.036 0.043 
			 RBK Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust 0.036 0.044 0.036 0.044 
			 RPR The Royal West Sussex NHS Trust 0.036 0.041 0.036 0.041 
			 RHU Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust 0.036 0.047 0.036 0.047 
			 RF7 Scunthorpe  Goole Hospitals NHS Trust 0.036 0.041 0.036 0.041 
			 RLN City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust 0.036 0.041 0.036 0.041 
			 RFS Chesterfield  North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust 0.036 0.042 0.036 0.042 
			 RR8 Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust 0.036 0.045 0.035 0.044 
			 RBD West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust 0.035 0.049 0.035 0.049 
			 RWE University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust 0.035 0.046 0.035 0.046 
			 RF6 North East Lincolnshire NHS Trust 0.035 0.044 0.035 0.044 
			 RCB York Health Services NHS Trust 0.035 0.045 0.035 0.045 
			 RNZ Salisbury Healthcare NHS Trust 0.035 0.048 0.035 0.048 
			 RNE Sandwell Healthcare NHS Trust 0.035 0.041 0.035 0.041 
			 RDE Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust 0.035 0.042 0.034 0.041 
			 RMF Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 0.035 0.046 0.035 0.046 
			 RKC Warrington Hospital NHS Trust 0.035 0.044 0.033 0.043 
			 RBT The Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust 0.034 0.042 0.034 0.042 
			 RFR Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust 0.034 0.040 0.034 0.040 
			 RL4 The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust 0.034 0.041 0.034 0.041 
			 RPS Mid Sussex NHS Trust 0.034 0.042 0.025 0.033 
			 RG3 Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust 0.034 0.038 0.026 0.030 
			 RN1 Winchester  Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust 0.033 0.045 0.033 0.045 
			 RLT George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust 0.033 0.043 0.033 0.042 
			 RAJ Southend Hospital NHS Trust 0.033 0.038 0.033 0.038 
			 RPA Medway NHS Trust 0.033 0.040 0.033 0.040 
			 RJF Burton Hospitals NHS Trust 0.033 0.043 0.033 0.043 
			 RAE Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust 0.033 0.039 0.033 0.039 
			 RJC South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust 0.033 0.043 0.033 0.043 
			 RPL Worthing  Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust 0.033 0.049 0.033 0.049 
			 RWG West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust 0.033 0.045 0.029 0.042 
			 RJH Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust 0.033 0.048 0.032 0.047 
			 RVQ Wiltshire  Swindon Healthcare NHS Trust 0.032 0.043 0.032 0.043 
			 RGP James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust 0.032 0.055 0.031 0.054 
			 RTA South Durham Health Care NHS Trust 0.032 0.040 0.032 0.040 
			 RGQ Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust 0.032 0.044 0.032 0.044 
			 REF Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust 0.032 0.043 0.032 0.043 
			 RG7 Havering Hospitals NHS Trust 0.032 0.040 0.030 0.038 
			 RC1 Bedford Hospitals NHS Trust 0.032 0.040 0.032 0.040 
			 RFW West Middlesex University NHS Trust 0.032 0.037 0.027 0.033 
			 RTF Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust 0.032 0.039 0.032 0.039 
			 RA5 East Gloucestershire NHS Trust 0.032 0.047 0.031 0.046 
			 RTH Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust 0.032 0.042 0.031 0.041 
			 RQM Chelsea  Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust 0.032 0.038 0.032 0.038 
			 RNS Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust 0.031 0.041 0.031 0.041 
			 RJ7 St George's Healthcare NHS Trust 0.031 0.037 0.031 0.037 
			 RGZ Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust 0.031 0.044 0.029 0.042 
			 RHW Royal Berkshire  Battle Hospitals NHS Trust 0.031 0.044 0.031 0.044 
			 RM1 Norfolk  Norwich Health Care NHS Trust 0.031 0.041 0.030 0.040 
			 RD3 Poole Hospitals NHS Trust 0.031 0.050 0.031 0.050 
			 RDU Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust 0.031 0.042 0.031 0.042 
			 RJ1 Guy's  St Thomas' NHS Trust 0.031 0.033 0.027 0.029 
			 RA7 United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust 0.031 0.039 0.031 0.039 
			 REP Liverpool Womens Hospital NHS Trust 0.031 0.040 0.031 0.040 
			 RK5 The Kings Mill Centre for Health Care Services NHS Trust 0.031 0.036 0.031 0.036 
			 RH6 Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust 0.031 0.035 0.031 0.035 
			 RQQ Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust 0.030 0.042 0.030 0.042 
			 RN5 North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust 0.030 0.042 0.029 0.041 
			 RHM Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust 0.030 0.040 0.030 0.040 
			 RC3 Ealing Hospital NHS Trust 0.030 0.044 0.030 0.044 
			 RH2 South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust 0.030 0.042 0.028 0.040 
			 RQX Homerton Hospital NHS Trust 0.030 0.032 0.023 0.024 
			 RC9 Luton  Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust 0.030 0.045 0.028 0.043 
			 RCD Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust 0.030 0.038 0.030 0.038 
			 RMW Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust 0.030 0.034 0.030 0.034 
			 RQN The Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust 0.030 0.047 0.027 0.044 
			 RGN Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust 0.030 0.036 0.030 0.036 
			 RTX Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust 0.030 0.039 0.029 0.039 
			 RKE Whittington Hospital NHS Trust 0.030 0.044 0.030 0.044 
			 RM2 South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust 0.030 0.034 0.030 0.034 
			 RNH Newham Healthcare NHS Trust 0.030 0.033 0.026 0.029 
			 RNQ Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust 0.029 0.038 0.029 0.038 
			 RAP North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust 0.029 0.034 0.029 0.034 
			 RR1 Birmingham Heartlands  Solihull NHS Trust 0.029 0.035 0.029 0.035 
			 RCP Bassetlaw Hospital  Community Health Services NHS Trust 0.029 0.036 0.029 0.036 
			 RDD Basildon  Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust 0.028 0.036 0.027 0.035 
			 RD8 Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust 0.028 0.034 0.028 0.034 
			 RN3 Swindon  Marlborough NHS Trust 0.028 0.040 0.027 0.039 
			 RTP Surrey  Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust 0.028 0.037 0.028 0.037 
			 RLG Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust 0.028 0.040 0.028 0.040 
			 RV8 North West London Hospitals NHS Trust 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.035 
			 RNA Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust 0.027 0.045 0.026 0.044 
			 RTK Ashford  St Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust 0.027 0.041 0.027 0.041 
			 RAS The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust 0.027 0.034 0.027 0.034 
			 RAX Kingston Hospital NHS Trust 0.027 0.037 0.027 0.037 
			 RVL Barnet  Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust 0.027 0.035 0.026 0.035 
			 RCS Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust 0.026 0.034 0.026 0.034 
			 RNT Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust 0.026 0.033 0.021 0.028 
			 RD7 Heatherwood  Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust 0.025 0.030 0.023 0.028 
			 RJ2 The Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust 0.025 0.029 0.025 0.029 
			 RCX Kings Lynn  Wisbech Hospitals NHS Trust 0.024 0.032 0.024 0.032 
			 RDF Forest Healthcare NHS Trust 0.024 0.028 0.024 0.028 
			 RG4 Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust 0.023 0.026 0.021 0.024 
			 RFK Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital 0.023 0.030 0.023 0.030 
			 RA3 Weston Area Health NHS Trust 0.022 0.026 0.022 0.026 
			 RQ8 Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust 0.021 0.028 0.021 0.027 
			 RVW North Tees  Hartlepool NHS Trust 0.021 0.027 0.021 0.027 
			 RG2 Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust 0.021 0.028 0.012 0.020 
			 RJ5 St Mary's Hospital NHS Trust 0.020 0.022 0.018 0.021 
			 RGA Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust 0.018 0.021 0.017 0.021 
			 RRV University College London Hospitals NHS Trust 0.017 0.018 0.017 0.018 
			 RGT Addenbrooke's NHS Trust 0.017 0.023 0.017 0.023 
			 RVV East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust 0.016 0.019 0.016 0.019 
			 REX Oldham NHS Trust 0.015 0.016 0.015 0.016 
			 RJ6 Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust 0.013 0.022 0.013 0.022 
			 RAL Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 
			 RA2 Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust 0.004 0.007 0.004 0.007 
			 RGR West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 
			 RCA Northallerton Health Services NHS Trust 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 
		
	
	Notes:
	1 Establishment midwife figures are the sum of the staff in posts figures as at 30 September 2000 and the 3 month vacancy figures as at 31 March 2001 so will not necessarily give an accurate reflection of the actual establishment.
	2 Headcount establishment figures are the sum in post headcount and the 3 month vacancies whole-time equivalents, headcount vacancy figures are unavailable.
	3 Deliveries at Royal London (RNJ) are attended by midwives employed by Tower Hamlets (RRG) and have therefore been excluded.
	4 Figures are rounded to three decimal places.
	5 Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.
	6 Figures exclude learners and agency staff.
	Source:
	Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census
	Department of Health NHS Workforce Vacancy Survey
	Office for National Statistics (ONS) Birth Registration Statistics as compiled by SD3G

NHS Maternity Units

David Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list NHS maternity units in descending order of the percentage of Caesarean deliveries in 2001.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 5 July 2002
	The table showing the percentage of deliveries by caesarean section by trust in descending order fo2000 to 2001, taken from the data published in the National Health Service Maternity Statistics, England Bulletin 2002/11 published in April 2002 has been placed in the Library.

NHS Direct

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been dealt with by NHS Direct; how many calls have been abandoned; how many call centres are operational, and where they are; what the runnings costs are of each call centre; and if he will make a statement.

David Lammy: holding answer 23 July 2002
	Since its launch in March 1998, NHS Direct has handled 13 million calls. Approximately 7 per cent. of calls made to NHS Direct are abandoned without the caller speaking to a nurse.
	There are 22 call centres in operation throughout England. Where they are located and the running costs for each site is outlined in the table.
	
		
			  NHS Direct Site Geographical Coverage Population Coverage Running Costs 200203 
		
		
			 Anglia Cambridgeshire, Norfolk  Suffolk 2,200,000 #3,542,000 
			 Avon, Gloucester  Wiltshire Avon, Gloucester  Wiltshire 2,200,000 #4,465,000 
			 Bedfordshire  Hertfordshire Bedfordshire  Hertfordshire 1,700,000 #3,580,000 
			 Birmingham, Black Country  Solihull West Midlands 2,400,000 #4,041,000 
			 East Midlands Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire  Nottinghamshire 3,500,000 #5,606,000 
			 Essex Essex, London Borough of Barking  Havering 2,037,000 #3,815,000 
			 Greater Manchester, Cheshire  Wirral Cheshire 3,900,000 #6,137,000 
			 Hampshire  Isle of Wight Hampshire  Isle of Wight 1,800,000 #4,384,000 
			 Kent, Surrey  Sussex Surrey, Kent  Sussex 4,100,000 #5,560,000 
			 Midlandshires Staffordshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Warwickshire  Worcester 3,000,000 #4,073,000 
			 North and Central London Barnet, Barking and Havering, Enfield  Haringey, Kensington, Chelsea  Westminster 1,600,000 #3,121,000 
			 North East Northumberland, Tyne  Wear 2,000,000 #4,693,000 
			 North East London East London  City, Redbridge  Waltham Forest 1,100,000 #2,370,000 
			 North West Coast Lancashire, Merseyside  Cumbria 3,000,000 #4,976,000 
			 South East London Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham 1,500,000 #3,316,000 
			 South West London Croydon, Kingston  Richmond, Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth 1,300,000 #2,620,000 
			 South Yorkshire  Humber South Yorkshire, North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire 1,700,000 #3,150,000 
			 Tees, East  North Yorkshire East Riding, Cleveland  North Yorkshire 1,900,000 #3,580,000 
			 Thames Valley  Northamptonshire Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire  Berkshire 2,800,000 #4,028,000 
			 West Country Cornwall, Devon, Dorset  Somerset 2,700,000 #4,720,000 
			 West London Hillingdon, Brent and Harrow, Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow 1,350,000 #4,196,000 
			 West Yorkshire Calderdale  Kirklees, Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield  North Yorkshire 2,100,000 #4,949,000

NHS Direct

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2001, Official Report, column 255W, what progress has been made in setting up the NHS Direct performance management framework; and if he will make a statement.

David Lammy: holding answer 23 July 2002
	The first version of the NHS direct performance framework was launched in March 2002. The framework is based on the principle of continuous quality improvement and outlines responsibilities and tools for service delivery and the monitoring of performance and improvement at all levels of the organisationfrom the individual to the national service. The framework also outlines a set of key performance targets for NHS Direct, areas for the development of clinical indicators and areas for the development of internal management measures.

Sausage Casings

David Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Natural Sausage Casings Association was first consulted by the Food Standards Agency about its proposed ban on the use of sheep intestines in food.

Hazel Blears: holding answer 9 July 2002
	The Food Standards Agency advise me that the Natural Sausage Casings Association (NSCA) was one of around 1,000 interested parties consulted on the report of the core stakeholder group on BSE and sheep, on 23 May this year. This report, which suggested that the Agency should recommend to the European Commission that intestine from all sheep be added to the current list of specified risk material, was made to the Agency's Board who considered it at their meeting on 13 June. The full detailed response of the NCSA and of their representatives, together with a summary of all the other responses to the consultation was made available to the Board.

Eating Disorders

Oliver Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his written answer of 13 February 2002, Official Report, column 486W, whether the figures for finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of eating disorder for 200001 have been adjusted for shortfalls in data; and if he will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 11 July 2002
	Pursuant to the written answer of 13 February 2002, Official Report, column 486W, the figures for finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of eating disorder for 200001 have now been adjusted for the shortfalls.
	There were 1973 finished consultant episodes in National Health Service hospitals with a primary diagnosis of eating disorder in 200001. This figure does not represent all people with an eating disorder, as many do not require admission to hospital.

Nursing Home Personnel (Information Searches)

Colin Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason (a) the DfES, (b) his Department and (c) other relevant information records are searched in addition to the Criminal Records Bureau's under the care standards regulations for checking nursing home owners and managers.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 17 July 2002
	Care homes look after some of the most vulnerable people in our society. In the past there have been far too many instances of abuse and neglect in care homes. We believe it is vitally important to ensure that the proprietors and managers of these homes are of good character and able to discharge their responsibilities fully.
	The Care Homes Regulations 2001 require a criminal records check through the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) for care home owners, managers and staff. As part of its checks the CRB will automatically check the Protection of Children Act register, and the Protection of Vulnerable Adults register once this becomes operational.
	People who are unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults will not necessarily have committed a criminal offence. Regulations 7, 9 and 19 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001 require that registered providers, manager and staff must be fit people. It is, therefore, necessary for a range of records to be checked in order to ensure the fitness of care home owners and managers and to ensure that care home residents are properly looked after and that they are protected from abuse or neglect.

NHS Leadership Centre

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what the cost has been in severance pay and other related costs arising out of the decision of the former Director of the NHS Leadership Centre to step down from her post in December 2001;
	(2)  whether the former Director of the NHS Leadership Centre is working in an executive capacity in (a) the NHS and (b) his Department.

David Lammy: holding answer 18 July 2002
	The individual concerned was employed by Royal United Hospitals Bath National Health Service Trust. Her secondment to the Department was terminated on 2 May 2002. Her contract of employment with the NHS trust was terminated on the 22 August 2002. She received no severance payment in connection with her decision to stand down from her position as head of the leadership centre nor in connection with the termination of her contract of employment.

Family Doctors

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the amount of general practitioner hours which could be freed up by cutting the amount of paperwork required of family doctors.

John Hutton: holding answer 18 July 2002
	The Department has worked with the Cabinet Office public sector team to achieve the outcomes contained in the joint reports Making a difference: reducing general practitioner (GP) paperwork I and II published in March 2001 and June 2002.
	Estimates, based on advice from practising general practitioners (GPs), suggest that if all the outcomes of these two reports are fully implemented the potential annual savings will amount to 10.3 million GP appointments freed, 3.4 additonal hours saved and up to 80,000 additional requests for medical information removed.

Parliamentary Questions

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to Question 59418 from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

David Lammy: holding answer 18 July 2002
	I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on Wednesday 24 July 2002, Official Report, vol. 389, col. 142324W.

Inappropriate Medication

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 July 2002, Official Report, column 1037W, on inappropriate medication, how many people died from (a) suffering adverse reactions and (b) being prescribed inappropriate medication in each (i) health authority and (ii) region in each of the last five years.

David Lammy: holding answer 22 July 2002
	Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to medicines are collected by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) through the spontaneous reporting scheme, the yellow card scheme. There are approximately 20,000 reports of ADRs reported to the MCA and CSM through the yellow card scheme each year, of which approximately 3 per cent. report a fatal suspected ADR.
	There are four regional monitoring centres (RMCs) that act locally on behalf of the CSM to collect reports of ADRs and to stimulate ADR reporting through local initiatives. These are CSM Mersey, CSM Wales, CSM Northern and CSM West Midlands. The table shows the total number of suspected ADR reports and reports with a fatal outcome received via the Yellow Card Scheme from 1997 to 2001. It includes the number of suspected ADR reports and reports with a fatal outcome received in each of the RMCs. A breakdown of ADR data by health authority is not available. Data from the yellow card scheme cannot be used to measure the frequency of an ADR in a particular region or health authority as ADR reporting is associated with an unknown and a variable degree of under reporting.
	It is important to note that submission of a suspected ADR report does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug. Many factors have to be taken into account in assessing causal relationships including temporal association, the possible contribution of concomitant medication and the underlying disease.
	Separate figures are not available on adverse reactions resulting from patients being prescribed inappropriate medication. shirley
	
		Total number of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) Reports and Reports with a Fatal Outcome from 1997 to 2001 Received by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and its Regional Monitoring Centres (RMCs) from the Adverse Drug Reactions On-line Information Tracking (ADROIT) Database
		
			 Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
		
		
			 Medicines Control Agency (MCA)* 
			 Total No. of ADR Reports: 16,628 18,057 18,488 33,129 21,358 
			 Total No. of Reports with a Fatal Outcome: 455 529 560 610 608 
			 Percentage: 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 
			 CSM Northern 
			 No. of ADR Reports: 922 920 904 1,286 1,218 
			 No. of Reports with a Fatal Outcome: 17 26 21 23 9 
			 Percentage: 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 
			 CSM West Midlands 
			 No. of ADR Reports: 1,236 1,305 1,307 2,654 1,317 
			 No. of Reports with a Fatal Outcome: 25 26 21 26 41 
			 Percentage: 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 
			 CSM Welsh 
			 No. of ADR Reports: 848 970 1,015 2,530 1,418 
			 No. of Reports with a Fatal Outcome: 29 27 15 23 16 
			 Percentage: 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 
			 CSM Mersey 
			 No. of ADR Reports: 733 711 650 1,161 768 
			 No. of Reports with a Fatal Outcome: 12 19 16 11 15 
			 Percentage: 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 
		
	
	*The total number of ADR reports (and reports with a fatal outcome) received by the Medicines Control Agency includes all ADR reports (and reports with a fatal outcome) received by the regional monitoring centres in addition to other sources.

Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  whether the financial allocation to the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority has been made on the basis of the combined allocation of its two predecessor health authorities in each year since its creation; and what those levels were;
	(2)  what progress he has made in working with IW Stakeholders to recognise island factors in the process of financial allocations for local health services.

Hazel Blears: holding answer 22 July 2002
	The issue of any additional costs associated with being an island was considered by the advisory committee on resources action (ACRA) in September 2002. ACRA concluded that the arguments presented in a local consultancy report on behalf of Isle of Wight health bodies did not constitute a convincing case. It recommended that there should be no adjustment to the Isle of Wight's target under the resource allocation formula. Ministers accepted ACRA's recommendation.
	The initial allocations for 2001-02 were made on an aggregated basis of the two former health authorities. The 2002-03 allocation was made on a combined population of the merged authority. These figures are shown in the table.
	
		Isle of Wight HA, Portsmouth  South East Hampshire HA and Isle of Wight, Portsmouth  South East Hampshire HA allocations 2001-02 and 2002-03
		
			 Health Authority 200102 200203 
		
		
			 Isle of Wight HA #108,678,000  
			 Portsmouth  South East Hants HA #397,591,000  
			 Isle of Wight, Portsmouth  South East Hants HA  #561,429,000 
		
	
	From 2003-04 the intention is that allocations will be made directly to primary care trusts.

Local Consultations

Cheryl Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information and guidance he issues to strategic health authorities, NHS trusts and primary care trusts about involving the public in Local Consultations on the provision of health care and social services; and what plans he has to develop this.

David Lammy: holding answer 23 July 2002
	Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 places a duty on National Health Service Trusts, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and Strategic Health Authorities (StHAs) to make arrangements to involve and consult patients and the public in planning of service provision, involvement in the development of proposals for changes and involvement in decisions about changes to the operation of services.
	Currently, work is in progress to develop guidance to support NHS organisations deliver this new requirement. The draft guidance is being developed and overseen by a reference group including representatives from: the local government association, the NHS confederation, Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales (ACHCEW), the society of community health councils staff, cancer link, Wolverhampton CVS, NHS leadership centre, directorates of health and social care, NHS Estates, general practitioners, PCTs and StHAs. In addition, many NHS organisations have contributed to the development of the draft document by providing examples of good practice and commenting on a recent draft versionto ensure that the final document enables effective policy development and a range of involvement strategies.
	We also intend one of the key initial NHS demonstrators for fulfilling section 11 requirements will be for all NHS organisations to be signed up to, and working within, a geographically relevant local compact. The voluntary and community sector also have a key role to play in working with their local NHS organisations to enable as many people as possible to become involved in local NHS decision making processes to help ensure that patient and the public are at the centre of NHS decision making.

EU Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the EU Scientific Committee on veterinary measures relating to public health is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: The mandate for the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health is to answer scientific and technical questions, posed to it by the European Commission, concerning consumer health and food safety, and relating zoonotic, toxicological, veterinary and notably hygiene measures applicable to the production, processing, and supply of food of animal origin.
	The committee has met five times in the last 12 months. It is composed of independent experts, one of whom is British.
	The committee is accountable solely to the European Commission, which pays the travel and subsistence costs. There are no additional costs to United Kingdom public funds. The minutes of its meetings and the opinions it produces are posted on the Commission's web site.

Acute Hospitals

Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what services are included in the definition of core services with respect to an acute hospital in the NHS.

John Hutton: There is no national definition of core services with respect to an acute hospital in the National Health Service. Each local service will reach agreement on where services can best be provided, and any substantial variation in services must be the subject of full public consultation.

Non-NHS Hospitals

Mark Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the usage of private, non-NHS hospitals by PCTS.

John Hutton: In October 2001, the Department carried out a survey of the use of the independent sector for acute elective care between April and September 2001 by National Health Service organisations, including primary care trusts. A poor response rate means that the survey results are not reliable. A further survey to obtain information about the second half of 200102 is currently in progress.

Mixed Sex Wards

Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2002, Official Report, column 624W, on mixed sex wards, what information he collates on the amount of mixed sex accommodation in the NHS; what information has been collated since 1997; and if he will place such information in the Library.

John Hutton: Since 1997, it has been a requirement for trusts to report annually to health authorities on forecast compliance status of the overall trust as at December 2002. Each trust measures their progress with compliance against the three objectives as stated in my previous answer.
	Trusts are free to publicise their position.

East Lancashire NHS Trust

Peter Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the decision on whether to establish a new NHS trust in East Lancashire following the consultation on hospital trusts merger.

Jacqui Smith: The proposal to establish the new trust in East Lancashire was approved on 29 July. The new organisation will be known as the East Lancashire Hospitals National Health Service Trust and will assume formal responsibility for services currently provided by the NHS trusts in Blackburn and Burnley with effect from 1 April 2003.
	Local hon. Members were informed of this decision and I also wrote to my hon. Friend on 7 September following his letter to me dated 1 July on the same subject.

Vaccination Programme

Ian Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government have spent on the vaccination programme in each year since 1972.

Hazel Blears: The information is not collected in the format requested. To provide a detailed response would incur disproportionate costs.

NHS Executive

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the NHS Executive at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients.

David Lammy: The NHS Executive as a separate part of the Department did not exist at 1 April 2002.
	We cannot give a proportion of these staff who have clinical contact with National Health Service patients as we do not collect this data.

Weston General Hospital

Brian Cotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will reach a decision about whether to build an extension at Weston General Hospital for accident and emergency cases.

Hazel Blears: No bid has been submitted by the Weston Area Health Service Trust for an extension to Weston General Hospital for accident and emergency cases. The trust did submit a bid for a diagnostic and treatment centre to be developed in the existing newly built extension at the hospital at a cost of #2.1 million. On 15 August we announced investment of #39 million for ten more diagnostic and treatment centres in the next two years which will in total treat over 25,000 extra cases a year, the Weston Area Health NHS Trust was one of these.

Neonatal Services

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2002, when he expects to publish the report on Neonatal Services; and if he will answer the written questions from the hon. Member for Castle Point, refs: 67662, 67671, 67672, 67668, 67675, 67663, 67664, 67673, 67674, 67669, 67670 and 67661.

Jacqui Smith: A review has been undertaken of provision for neonatal services which addresses the issues raised by the hon. Member. I am considering the report following from this review and expect to determine the next steps in this process shortly.
	The hon. Member's written questions were replied to on Monday 15 July 2002, Official Report, vol. 389, col. 120W.

Newborn Babies

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is introducing to improve intensive care facilities for Newborn Babies.

Jacqui Smith: A review has been undertaken of provision for neonatal services which addresses the issues raised by the hon. Member. I am considering the report following from this review and expect to determine the next steps in this process shortly.

Cancer Treatment

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 2002, Official Report, column 229W, on cancer, what the average time has been over the last three years that cancer patients have waited from an urgent referral to the start of the treatment; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: holding answer 22 July 2002
	The information requested is not available. We are putting in place monitoring arrangements to track the percentage of patients waiting less than two months from urgent general practitioner (GP) referral to treatment for all cancers by 2005. Date is currently available on the percentage of patients waiting.
	Less than two weeks from urgent GP referral for suspected cancer to first outpatient appointment, 93.8 per cent of patients were within two weeks in 2001, and 95.3 per cent so far in 2002.
	Less than one month from urgent GP referral to first treatment for children's and testicular cancers and acute leukaemia, 99 per cent patients with acute leukaemia, 93.5 per cent with testicular cancer and 100 per cent of children with cancer were treated with the target time so far in 2002.
	Less than one month from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer 94.4 per cent of patients were treated within the target time so far in 2002.

Cancer Treatment

Dr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002, Official Report, column 152W, on the NHS Cancer Plan, if he will list the members of the working group; if he will publish the recommendations of the group; and what the evidential basis was for the group's recommendations.

Hazel Blears: The membership was:
	Dr. Graham WinyardNHS Executive: Medical Director Chairman
	Dr. Val ChistyAssistant Director of Public Health: West Midlands Regional Office, Department of Health
	Dr. Ruth CarnallChief Executive: West Kent Authority
	Miss Barbara DicksChair of the RCN Cancer Nursing Society: Royal Marsden Hospital
	Mr. Len FenwickChief Executive: Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS Trust
	Dr. Howard FreemanGeneral Practitioner: London
	Dr. Clive HarnerConsultant Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology: Royal Marsden Hospital
	Professor Bob HawardProfessor of Cancer Studies: University of Leeds
	Dr. Arthur HibbleChairman: RCGP Cancer Group
	Professor David J KerrProfessor of Clinical Oncology: University of Birmingham
	Mr. David KirbyPatient Representative
	Dr. Azim LakhaniCentral Health Outcomes Unit: Public Health Division
	Mr. David LyeDirector of Purchaser Performance Management: West Midlands Regional Office, Department of Health
	Mr. Colin McIlwainWaiting Times: National Health Service Executive
	Ms. Jane McKessackGeneral Health Services: National Health Service Executive
	Dr. Rajan MadhokDirector of Public Health: Gateshead and South Tynesdie Health Authority
	Mrs. Becky MilesNational Cancer Alliance
	Mrs. Jackie MurrayRegional Cancer Co-odinator: Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office, Department of Health
	Mr. Graeme PostonDirectorate of General Surgery: Royal Liverpool University Hospital
	Dr. Tim RileyHead of Outcomes and EffectivenessNational Health Service Executive
	Dr. David RosinConsultant Surgeon: St Mary's NHS Trust
	Mr. J H ShepherdConsultant Gynaecological Surgeon and Oncologist: St Bartholomew's Hospital
	Mrs. Gill OliverDirector of Patient Services: Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHS Trust
	Professor Mike RichardsSainsbury Professor of Palliative Medicine: St Thomas' Hospital
	Professor Irving TaylorBASO President: University College London Medical School
	A copy of the group's report has been placed in the Library.

Eye Scans

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential health implications resulting from (a) repeated iris scans and (b) repeated retina scans.

David Lammy: holding answer 22 July 2002
	The use of iris or retinal scanning systems in order to verify the identity of an individual is a relatively new development. This Department and the Health and Safety Executive are not aware of any evidence that repeated scanning is likely to be a health and safety problem for users. Existing health and safety law requires employers wishing to market and use this technology to undertake an adequate risk assessment of its safety so that appropriate control measures can be specified and used as necessary.

Patient Journey Times

Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average time is a patient travelled to reach (a) a NHS dentist and (b) a general practitioner in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

David Lammy: The information requested is not held centrally.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Andrew Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of recent research into Inflammatory Bowel Disease; what plans he has to act on the findings; and if he will make a statement.

David Lammy: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on infliximab for Crohn's Disease in May 2002. The Department has not made a separate assessment of recent research into Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD).
	It is anticipated that the NICE guidance will help the estimated 5 per cent of patients who have severe Crohn's Disease. Infliximab has not been recommended by NICE as a possible treatment for sufferers of ulcerative colitis.
	The Medical Research Council funds several projects on basic mechanisms regulating the function of the gastrointestinal tract in normal and disease function, dietary regulation of intestinal function, cellular and molecular mechanisms of gastrointestinal diseases and neuroendocrine control of the gut. Increasing our understanding of how the intestine functions will facilitate the development of therapeutic agents to treat acute intestinal inflammation and chronic diseases such as Crohn's and IBD.

NHS Treatment Entitlement

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2002, ref. 69433, who meets the cost of treatment by general practitioners of persons who are not entitled to NHS treatment; how many people who are not entitled to NHS treatment have been treated at NHS expense in the last year for which information is available; and what steps he takes to ensure recovery of the costs.

Hazel Blears: General practitioners may not provide National Health Service treatment other than emergency or immediately necessary treatment to persons who are not eligible for inclusion on their patient lists. They may however treat such patients privately. No data are held on the incidence or costs of such treatment.

Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

Robert Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust has not received funding for the Salisbury Alcohol and Drugs Advisory Service; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: holding answer 22 July 2002
	Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership National Health Service Trust has received funding, both mainstream and ring fenced monies, however, decisions on the funding of individual alcohol and drug treatment services are made at local level.
	I understand that an accounting error has led to a shortfall in relation to the service in Salisbury and that this is being addressed by the South Wiltshire Primary Care Trust and Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust.

Asthma

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent reports into the causes of asthma his Department has commissioned; what assessment his Department has made of these reports; and if he will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 23 July 2002
	We have commissioned no recent reports into the causes of asthma. We have, however, sponsored extensive research on asthma and respiratory disease-related issues.
	Our current research programme concentrates on practice improvement. The National Asthma Campaign (NAC), the leading voluntary organisation with an interest in asthma, manages the National Health Service research and development programme on asthma management. This has supported 33 projects throughout the United Kingdom at a total cost of #4.9 million since 1996. The strategy aims to create a research based health service in which reliable and relevant information is used to make decisions on health policy, clinical practice and management of services.
	The overall spend on asthma research for the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Department was almost #4 million in 19992000 and #12.2 million including other respiratory disorders. The Departmental spend on directly commissioned research projects on asthma since 1997 is an estimated #7.24 million.
	The Department's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants has produced an interim statement on the effects of air pollution on asthma. This was in response to a series of articles published by the Independent on Sunday that claimed that air pollution caused asthma. The interim statement is available on the Committee's website at www.doh.gov.uk/comeap
	A subgroup of the Committee has also now been set up to review the subject in more detail, and will report in 2003. The Department will consider this report carefully when it is published. The overall spend on asthma research for the MRC and the Department was almost #4 million in 19992000, and #12.2 million including other respiratory disorders. The Department's spend on directly commissioned research projects on asthma since 1997 is an estimated #7.24 million.

MRSA

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many MRSA incidents have been (a) voluntarily and (b) mandatorily reported in each NHS region since 1996 (i) in total and (ii) as a ratio to the population in that region.

Hazel Blears: holding answer 23 July 2002
	We are unable to supply these data as information on incidents which are defined as three or more patients with the same strain in the same hospital in one calendar month is no longer compiled. The following table shows the number of bacteraemia reports per 100,000 head of population for each region. Data for the voluntary reporting system are available from 1996 but are known to be incomplete. Mandatory reporting was introduced in April 2001 and the first year's data are provided.
	
		Number of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia laboratory reports and rate per 100,000 population* Voluntary laboratory surveillance: 19962001
		
			  1996NumberRate 1997NumberRate 1998NumberRate 1999NumberRate 2000NumberRate 2001NumberRate 
		
		
			 North East 10 0.39 46 1.78 138 5.35 143 5.55 185 7.18 179 6.95 
			 Yorkshire  Humberside 50 0.73 130 1.89 197 2.86 181 2.63 314 4.55 378 5.48 
			 East Midlands 40 0.79 130 2.57 143 2.83 215 4.25 331 6.54 404 7.99 
			 Eastern 159 3.78 271 6.44 364 8.65 442 10.50 477 11.34 604 14.35 
			 London 327 6.13 447 8.38 422 7.91 458 8.58 549 10.29 525 9.84 
			 South East 228 4.18 321 5.88 375 6.87 404 7.40 564 10.33 724 13.26 
			 South West 87 1.18 191 2.59 191 2.59 305 4.14 373 5.06 479 6.49 
			 West Midlands 267 3.29 336 4.14 396 4.88 498 6.14 771 9.50 817 10.07 
			 North West 105 2.11 173 3.48 295 5.93 367 7.38 365 7.34 453 9.11 
			 England 1,273 2.55 2,045 4.09 2,521 5.04 3,013 6.03 3,929 7.86 4,563 9.13 
		
	
	
		Mandatory surveillance: April 2001March 2002
		
			  Number Rate 
		
		
			 North East 363 14.08 
			 Yorkshire and   
			 Humberside 714 10.36 
			 East Midlands 543 10.74 
			 Eastern 744 17.68 
			 London 1555 29.15 
			 South East 1012 18.54 
			 South West 696 9.44 
			 West Midlands 761 9.38 
			 North West 870 17.49 
			 England 7258 14.52 
		
	
	
		2000 Population by Region
		
			  ONS Population 2000 
		
		
			 North East 2,577,346 
			 Yorkshire and Humberside 6,893,932 
			 East Midlands 5,057,915 
			 Eastern 4,207,925 
			 London 5,335,361 
			 South East 5,459,606 
			 South West 7,375,065 
			 West Midlands 8,114,848 
			 North West 4,975,091 
			 England 49,997,089 
		
	
	*2000 regional population data used as denominators for all rate calculations

Correspondence

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the leter of 10 June 2002 from the hon. Member for Twickenham on Lynde House.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 23 July 2002
	A reply was sent to the hon. Member on Monday 12 August 2002.

Newborn Hearing Screening

James Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if he will place in the Library the lists of sites considered for the second phase of the newborn hearing screening programme;
	(2)  pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002, Official Report, column 164W, on newborn hearing screening, how many sites will provide newborn screening by the end of (a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004, and when the funding for each stage of this process will be committed.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 23 July 2002
	A list of the sites considered for the second phase of the newborn hearing screening programme will be placed in the Library.
	Twenty-three sites are currently providing newborn hearing screening. We expect to bring on a further 16 sites by the end of March 2003, with approximately 30 additional sites during the financial year 200304. The remainder of sites are expected to come on stream by the end of the financial year 200405.

Departmental Jobs

Annabelle Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many jobs under the remit of his Department in (a) the core department, (b) non-departmental public bodies, (c) executive agencies and (d) independent statutory bodies, organisations and bodies financially sponsored by his Department and other such organisations, are located in (i) Scotland, (ii) England, excluding Greater London, (iii) Greater London, (iv) Wales, (v) Northern Ireland and (vi) overseas, broken down by (A) whole time equivalent jobs and (B) the pecentage per individual department, body or organisation.

David Lammy: holding answer 24 July 2002
	The information requested is shown in the table.
	
		
			   (i) Scotland (ii) Rest of England (iii) London (iv) Wales (v) Northern Ireland (vi) Overseas  
			 Dept/Body/Organisation Countries covered No (FTE) %age No (FTE) %age No (FTE) %age No (FTE) %age No (FTE) %age No (FTE) %age Total FTE 
		
		
			 (a) Core Department (excluding agencies) England 0 0.0 1,651.7 31.2 1,983.7 37.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3,635.4 
			 (b) Commission for Health Improvement England  Wales 0 0.0 0 0.0 184.0 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 184.0 
			 (b) General Social Care Council England 0 0.0 19.9 24.7 60.8 75.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 80.7 
			 (b) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority UK 0 0.0 0 0.0 34.0 100.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 34.0 
			 (b) National Biological Standards Board (UK) UK 0 0.0 236.0 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 236.0 
			 (b) National Care Standards Commission England 0 0.0 1,642 89.7 189.0 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,831 
			 (b) National Radiological Protection Board UK 26.0 9.0 285.0 91.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 311.0 
			 (b) Public Health Laboratory Service UK 0 0.0 1,945.0 65.9 742.0 25.1 255.0 8.6 5.0 0.1 0 0.0 2,947.0 
			 (c) Medicine Controls Agency UK 0 0.0 24.1 0.5 431.3 8.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 455.4 
			 (c) Medical Devices Agency UK wide for regulatory activities. As DH in respect of all other business activities. 0 0.0 8.8 0.2 129.0 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 137.8 
			 (c) NHS Estates England 0 0.0 302.6 5.7 20.0 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 322.6 
			 (c) NHS Pensions Agency England  Wales 0 0.0 445.1 8.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 445.1 
			 (c) NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency England (Although a few contracts are shared throughout the UK) 0 0.0 291.2 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 291.2 
			 (d) see note 1  2   
		
	
	Key
	(a) Core Department (excluding agencies)
	(b) Non-departmental public bodies
	(c) Executive agency
	(d) Independent statutory body, organisations and bodies financially sponsored by department
	Notes
	1Information on Independent statutory bodies listed is not held.
	The General Chiropratic Council
	The General Dental Council
	The General Medical Council
	The General Optical Council
	The General Osteopathic Council
	The Health Professions Council
	The Nursing and Midwifery Council
	The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
	2The Department does not hold information on numbers or location details for organisation and bodies financially sponsored by the Deparetment.
	Percentage score for A  C, when added together, equals 100%

Teenage Pregnancy

Adrian Flook: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the teenage pregnancy rate in Taunton was at the latest date for which figures are available.

Hazel Blears: The under 18 conception rate for the Taunton Deane District Council area was 40.2 per thousand for the period 19982000, the latest period for which data have been published by the Office for National Statistics. Teenage pregnancy rates are usually measured by the under 18 conception rate. The teenage pregnancy strategy has set a target to halve the national rate by 2010.
	The corresponding rates for Somerset County, the south west region and England were 38.0, 37.4 and 44.9 respectively.

Heroin

Paul Stinchcombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (a) studies and (b) pilots have been undertaken since 1972 into the impact on (i) crime levels and (ii) health indicators of prescribing heroin.

Hazel Blears: There is very limited United Kingdom research in the area of heroin prescribing. Given the current use of injectable methadone in the UK and also a smaller number of opiate addicted individuals currently receiving injectable heroin, potentially there are difficulties in recruitment to suitably sized and rigorous research studies. Those studies that have been reported from the UK since 1972 do not give definitive results as to the effect of heroin treatment on health and crime but indicate potential benefits and risks.
	Hartnoll et al (1980) reported a London study carried out in the early 1970's comprising injectable heroin and oral methadone treatment in patients assessed as dependent on heroin. There were no differences between the two groups in health outcomes at 12 months and no consistent differences in levels of crime identified though there were methodological problems in comparing the two groups appropriately.
	McCusker et al (1996) reported the introduction of heroin prescribing to one of three English community drug teams but no conclusions could be drawn about the impact of the heroin treatment and outcomes due to the methodology used.
	Battersby et al (1992) in a descriptive study of injectable opiates are reported to have shown reductions in illicit drug use and criminality with little improvementshown in health, also raising some concerns about continued unsafe injecting practice.
	Metrebian et al (1998) studied the use of either injectable heroin or injectable methadone for those doing badly on oral methadone. This suggested that the use of injectable methadone could be a viable alternative to injectable heroin in some and that the use of injectable opiate treatment in those who had failed oral treatments could lead to improvement in those who remained in treatment, in health and levels of criminal activity. They concluded that injectable heroin is not necessarily the drug of choice given the availability of injectable methadone.
	The more recently reported Swiss and Dutch studies are not directly applicable to the UK context, the Swiss study being in effect a feasibility study. However, both have produced results indicating the possibility of benefits for health and crime, for a minority of patients who are carefully selected long term opiate addicts who have failed in other treatments including oral methadone treatment.
	No pilots have been identified that contribute to assessing the impact of injectable heroin on health and crime.

Treatment (Postcode Prescribing)

Andrew Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what recent representations he has (a) made and (b) received about the non-prescribing of NICE approved treatment by primary care trusts on financial grounds; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  what recent representations he has (a) made to and (b) received from primary care trusts and other NHS trusts about the continuation of postcode lottery in the prescribing of treatment; and if he will make a statement.

David Lammy: The Department has made no such representations and according to the Department's records, none have been received recently from primary care trusts (PCTs) and other National Health Service trusts about the alleged continuation of postcode prescribing of treatments.
	PCTs are under a statutory obligation, set out in directions, to provide appropriate funding for treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
	PCTs have been made aware of these statutory obligations. I have not made any representations about alleged non-compliance with them, nor according to the Department's records, have any such representations been received.